Does Human Nature Make Socialism / Communism / Pacifist Anarchism Impossible?

When discussing my political views in "real life," one of the most common criticisms I get is that communism* is impossible because it is inconsistent with human nature.

These people say that we people are naturally, biologically driven to be selfish, lazy, greedy, devious, xenophobic, and hateful, and that a strong state, exploitative economic system (such as capitalism), and profit motive is necessary to keep people in line. I take the opposite view, that our current system of social relations (capitalism) conditions people to have the "human nature" be selfish, greedy, etc., and that people can be trained to be generous, compassionate, kind, and unselfish under another, less-oppressive set of social relations.

For those who take the former position, please provide a logical argument as to why you feel communism* is incompatible with human nature and to why you feel an exploitative system of social relations (like capitalism) is necessary to control human nature.

* I define "communism" as a peaceful global society in which there are no states, markets, money, weapons, or wars. All people contribute to society through their talents and freely take whatever they need from society's pool of resources. The saying "from each according to her ability, to each according to her need" is the guiding principle of such a society

If it was human nature to have such a society we would have one, we don't and never had so therefore its not within human nature to support such a society.

Kindness said:

When discussing my political views in "real life," one of the most common criticisms I get is that communism* is impossible because it is inconsistent with human nature.

These people say that we people are naturally, biologically driven to be selfish, lazy, greedy, devious, xenophobic, and hateful, and that a strong state, exploitative economic system (such as capitalism), and profit motive is necessary to keep people in line. I take the opposite view, that our current system of social relations (capitalism) conditions people to have the "human nature" be selfish, greedy, etc., and that people can be trained to be generous, compassionate, kind, and unselfish under another, less-oppressive set of social relations.

For those who take the former position, please provide a logical argument as to why you feel communism* is incompatible with human nature and to why you feel an exploitative system of social relations (like capitalism) is necessary to control human nature.

* I define "communism" as a peaceful global society in which there are no states, markets, money, weapons, or wars. All people contribute to society through their talents and freely take whatever they need from society's pool of resources. The saying "from each according to her ability, to each according to her need" is the guiding principle of such a society

Click to expand...

You should provide some examples of where your Bllsht is working.

Wiseone said:

If it was human nature to have such a society we would have one, we don't and never had so therefore its not within human nature to support such a society.

Click to expand...

One could have said the same thing about a slaveless society in 1840, or a society with gender equality in 1900. The fact that it hasn't yet existed doesn't mean it's impossible.

Ray410 said:

You should provide some examples of where your Bllsht is working.

Click to expand...

The point of this thread is whether or not communism* is impossible due to human nature. The burden of proof is on those who argue that it is impossible, not on me to show that it is not.

People can be "trained".... very interesting choice of words... how would you go about that?

At the very least, I will state this... You should at least know it is impossible to implement this kind of government to a culture that is not ready... we are far far away from being capable aas a culture of such things if it is ever possible.

Kindness said:

The point of this thread is whether or not communism* is impossible due to human nature. The burden of proof is on those who argue that it is impossible, not on me to show that it is not.

Click to expand...

That's silly. You stated this position:

"I take the opposite view, that our current system of social relations (capitalism) conditions people to have the "human nature" be selfish, greedy, etc., and that people can be trained to be generous, compassionate, kind, and unselfish under another, less-oppressive set of social relations."

If you can't back that up, you're setting off the troll alarm.

Ray410 said:

That's silly. You stated this position:

"I take the opposite view, that our current system of social relations (capitalism) conditions people to have the "human nature" be selfish, greedy, etc., and that people can be trained to be generous, compassionate, kind, and unselfish under another, less-oppressive set of social relations."

If you can't back that up, you're setting off the troll alarm.

Click to expand...

Capitalism, feudalism, and slavery are fairly new on the human scene, only appearing in the past 10,000 years or so. Before that, humans lived in moneyless, more-or-less communistic societies without much hierarchy or systemized exploitation. Yes, there were armed conflicts, but nothing on the scale of the wars of the 20th and 21st centuries.

On a more modern level, peaceful, communist* communities exist around the world, including in the United States. Check out Twin Oaks in Virginia, for instance.

celticwar17 said:

People can be "trained".... very interesting choice of words... how would you go about that?

Click to expand...

Education, starting from early childhood. Schools would train kids to respect each other, work for the good of their communities and the planet, and hate violence, aggression, and exploitation. This training would continue through university level, and would be reinforced in workplaces and through the media.

celticwar17 said:

At the very least, I will state this... You should at least know it is impossible to implement this kind of government to a culture that is not ready... we are far far away from being capable aas a culture of such things if it is ever possible.

Click to expand...

No dispute here.

Kindness said:

One could have said the same thing about a slaveless society in 1840, or a society with gender equality in 1900. The fact that it hasn't yet existed doesn't mean it's impossible.

Click to expand...

True humans do evolve culturally that is a good point. However the characteristics of the society you've described have never existed, while slaveless societies have existed throughout history what you're talking about is a fundamental shift in human behavior, never before have a completely egalitarian society existed.

And when the society you've described faces basic problems I don't see how it can survive against even the most simple of them. Let me ask you this for the sake of argument, how will decisions be made in such a society? It seems to me that the very act of decision making destroys your society, it automatically puts people into at least two groups, a side for something and a side against something, and that's of course the simplest way society can divide itself. And how that society goes about selecting a decision makes some people unhappy and others happy.

Not to mention that not everyone has the same interests, even in a society as equal as the one you've described cannot be completely equal. What do to if two men love the same girl? Or what if you're in a farming commune and it has to be decided which kinds of crops each person will grow, well growing one kind may be physically harder than growing another kind so why should I want to grow the harder one?

And here's the real nail in the coffin, you've described a society where everyone works towards "the good of the society" taking only what they need and giving whatever they can through their talents. Ok so what is "the good of the society," what is "only what you need," what is "giving whatever you can" how much is sufficient? Unless everyone in your society is going to have the exact same answers to those questions then you're society has already broken, you've come up against a simple human feature called "an opinion" and its much much more fundamental than anything society has thus far culturally evolved out of for the most part, like slavery. But even those culturally evolutions are not complete, slavery still exists in the world after all.

Kindness said:

Capitalism, feudalism, and slavery are fairly new on the human scene, only appearing in the past 10,000 years or so. Before that, humans lived in moneyless, more-or-less communistic societies without much hierarchy or systemized exploitation. Yes, there were armed conflicts, but nothing on the scale of the wars of the 20th and 21st centuries.

On a more modern level, peaceful, communist* communities exist around the world, including in the United States. Check out Twin Oaks in Virginia, for instance.

Click to expand...

This is not accurate. Pre-historic human societies was full of conflict and rape. The males dominated and humans were a lot less civil with each other back then. One could assume soceity was heavily emotion driven and filled with superstition. This is just a plain lie.

Kindness said:

Education, starting from early childhood. Schools would train kids to respect each other, work for the good of their communities and the planet, and hate violence, aggression, and exploitation. This training would continue through university level, and would be reinforced in workplaces and through the media.



No dispute here.

Click to expand...

Education already does this...

Have you ever done anything selfish?
Humans are animals,it is in our very bones to survive and have an edge over our competition. Your trying to deny the theory of evolution. All it takes is one selfish man/women to completely screw everything up setting a chain reaction.

Kindness said:

Capitalism, feudalism, and slavery are fairly new on the human scene, only appearing in the past 10,000 years or so. Before that, humans lived in moneyless, more-or-less communistic societies without much hierarchy or systemized exploitation. Yes, there were armed conflicts, but nothing on the scale of the wars of the 20th and 21st centuries.

On a more modern level, peaceful, communist* communities exist around the world, including in the United States. Check out Twin Oaks in Virginia, for instance.

Click to expand...

Anyone who has studied native american culture would know that it was far from perfect. This example you show played into the European Romance of Native American cultures, it was idealized and never an actual reality.

Wiseone said:

True humans do evolve culturally that is a good point. However the characteristics of the society you've described have never existed, while slaveless societies have existed throughout history what you're talking about is a fundamental shift in human behavior, never before have a completely egalitarian society existed.

Click to expand...

It has on small scales, like the Twin Oaks example I gave in an earlier post. It is somewhat novel, but so was democracy and universal suffrage until about 1890.

And when the society you've described faces basic problems I don't see how it can survive against even the most simple of them. Let me ask you this for the sake of argument, how will decisions be made in such a society?

It seems to me that the very act of decision making destroys your society, it automatically puts people into at least two groups, a side for something and a side against something, and that's of course the simplest way society can divide itself. And how that society goes about selecting a decision makes some people unhappy and others happy.

Not to mention that not everyone has the same interests, even in a society as equal as the one you've described cannot be completely equal. What do to if two men love the same girl? Or what if you're in a farming commune and it has to be decided which kinds of crops each person will grow, well growing one kind may be physically harder than growing another kind so why should I want to grow the harder one?

Click to expand...

Small-scale decisions, like when two women love the same man, would be made much as they are now -- interpersonally. If two people have a dispute with each other, they're adults, they can settle it on their own .

Problems affecting a local community as a whole would be made by consensus or a supermajority in a gathering of all affected citizens. This can be scaled up to the global level by each community electing representatives to regional, continental, and global councils, where decisions are made in much the same way. These representatives are just normal people who can be recalled at any time by a consensus or supermajority of their constituents.

And here's the real nail in the coffin, you've described a society where everyone works towards "the good of the society" taking only what they need and giving whatever they can through their talents. Ok so what is "the good of the society," what is "only what you need," what is "giving whatever you can" how much is sufficient?

Click to expand...

The good of the society is to ensure the flourishing of all conscious beings within it. "What you need" is the minimum one requires for survival, health, and flourishing. "Giving what you can" is using your talents -- whatever they are -- to meet society's needs. This is necessarily vague, as the needs of each society are different and dependent on place, time, and culture.

Unless everyone in your society is going to have the exact same answers to those questions then you're society has already broken, you've come up against a simple human feature called "an opinion" and its much much more fundamental than anything society has thus far culturally evolved out of for the most part, like slavery. But even those culturally evolutions are not complete, slavery still exists in the world after all.

Click to expand...

No, there is room for disagreement on most things, as long as that disagreement is worked out nonviolently and respectfully. This is a libertarian socialist vision -- people would be free to live as they wish as long as they don't harm or exploit others.

Kindness said:

Small-scale decisions, like when two women love the same man, would be made much as they are now -- interpersonally. If two people have a dispute with each other, they're adults, they can settle it on their own .

Click to expand...

OK but we both know that doesn't always work.

Problems affecting a local community as a whole would be made by consensus or a supermajority in a gathering of all affected citizens. This can be scaled up to the global level by each community electing representatives to regional, continental, and global councils, where decisions are made in much the same way. These representatives are just normal people who can be recalled at any time by a consensus or supermajority of their constituents.




The good of the society is to ensure the flourishing of all conscious beings within it. "What you need" is the minimum one requires for survival, health, and flourishing. "Giving what you can" is using your talents -- whatever they are -- to meet society's needs. This is necessarily vague, as the needs of each society are different and dependent on place, time, and culture.



No, there is room for disagreement on most things, as long as that disagreement is worked out nonviolently and respectfully. This is a libertarian socialist vision -- people would be free to live as they wish as long as they don't harm or exploit others.

Click to expand...

OK well you've just created a government, now what happens if a group feels that the world government isn't treating them fairly by deciding they should do something they don't really like and they refuse to comply? I mean your whole system will be destroyed by enough people just saying they'd rather go their own way.

As for "the good of society" you still haven't defined it very well, how does what your saying translate to say a farmer who's wondering what kind of crops he should grow? How does he know that the good of society is for him to plant corn this year as opposed to anything else? And as for "minimum for one's survival, health, flourishing" again what is that exactly? How does that translate into what I as an individual can take from the pot? Do I need 1 or 2 tooth brushes per year, I mean 2 would be nice but I guess I could stretch out one to last a whole year, but that guy over there took 3 because he thinks switching every 4 months is sanity and therefore the minimum for what he needs for his health? How are we going to resolve this issue so no one takes more than they need or too much that someone has to go with less than they?

Kindness said:

Capitalism, feudalism, and slavery are fairly new on the human scene, only appearing in the past 10,000 years or so. Before that, humans lived in moneyless, more-or-less communistic societies without much hierarchy or systemized exploitation. Yes, there were armed conflicts, but nothing on the scale of the wars of the 20th and 21st centuries.

Click to expand...

Noble savage - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


ps. There was no system ~10k years ago for systemized exploitation.

Wiseone said:

OK but we both know that doesn't always work.
OK well you've just created a government,

Click to expand...

It's a governance body, but not a "government" as we know it today, just a group of people making decisions about human society. It has no real authority as we know it today -- it only issues recommendations -- and it certainly doesn't possess the monopoly on violence (the political scientific definition of a state). Violence, in fact, would not be acceptable under any circumstances, by the governance body or individual citizens.

now what happens if a group feels that the world government isn't treating them fairly by deciding they should do something they don't really like and they refuse to comply?

Click to expand...

They can voice their issues within community councils and inform their representatives. They're also free to work outside the "system" and do whatever they want, as long as it doesn't involve exploitation of people, non-human animals, or the planet, or any form of violence. If it does involve such things, they will be nonviolently resisted just like any other oppressor.

As for "the good of society" you still haven't defined it very well, how does what your saying translate to say a farmer who's wondering what kind of crops he should grow? How does he know that the good of society is for him to plant corn this year as opposed to anything else?

Click to expand...

If it isn't critical to human or animal survival, the equality of all people, or the basic function of society, it is a matter of community choice. If the community feels it's more important to grow corn than soybeans, the farmer grows corn. If it's evenly split, the farmer makes her own decision on what to grow. If one crop requires more labor, then the farmer can have some local kids come in and help out. You're making this more complicated than it needs to be. A society is just a group of people caring for each other. I think friends know how to care for each other without some large state or corporate entity telling them how to do so.

And as for "minimum for one's survival, health, flourishing" again what is that exactly? How does that translate into what I as an individual can take from the pot? Do I need 1 or 2 tooth brushes per year, I mean 2 would be nice but I guess I could stretch out one to last a whole year, but that guy over there took 3 because he thinks switching every 4 months is sanity and therefore the minimum for what he needs for his health?

Click to expand...

As long as his consumption isn't depriving others of their needs, it is fine. If it is depriving others, then it is a problem and his community will talk to him about it.

Kindness said:

It's a governance body, but not a "government" as we know it today, just a group of people making decisions about human society. It has no real authority as we know it today -- it only issues recommendations -- and it certainly doesn't possess the monopoly on violence (the political scientific definition of a state). Violence, in fact, would not be acceptable under any circumstances, by the governance body or individual citizens.



They can voice their issues within community councils and inform their representatives. They're also free to work outside the "system" and do whatever they want, as long as it doesn't involve exploitation of people, non-human animals, or the planet, or any form of violence. If it does involve such things, they will be nonviolently resisted just like any other oppressor.



If it isn't critical to human or animal survival, the equality of all people, or the basic function of society, it is a matter of community choice. If the community feels it's more important to grow corn than soybeans, the farmer grows corn. If it's evenly split, the farmer makes her own decision on what to grow. If one crop requires more labor, then the farmer can have some local kids come in and help out. You're making this more complicated than it needs to be. A society is just a group of people caring for each other. I think friends know how to care for each other without some large state or corporate entity telling them how to do so.



As long as his consumption isn't depriving others of their needs, it is fine. If it is depriving others, then it is a problem and his community will talk to him about it.

Click to expand...

Ok so the gentlemen is saying that he needs 3 tooth brushes per year to maintain his minimum need for health, anything less is just unsanitary. However there aren't enough tooth brushes being made every year for everyone to have three, so the gentlemen says we should make more then. But your society does not agree, they say two is just fine and they don't want to make more tooth brushes than they already are.

So how are we going to resolve this problem? Firstly you have an issue that two groups of people are disagreeing on what is a minimum need. Secondly because the taking is without rules there's nothing to stop this guy from taking 3 tooth brushes every year which means someone will get less than the general opinion of 2 being good. Thirdly if we follow the man's suggestion and start making more tooth brushes than you need to allocate labor and resources to additional tooth brush production, how are we going to decide who is going to be the new tooth brush maker and how are we going to decide what resources we should move from something we are currently using them for to make more tooth brushes? What if no one wants to make more tooth brushes?

Kindness said:

Education, starting from early childhood. Schools would train kids to respect each other, work for the good of their communities and the planet, and hate violence, aggression, and exploitation. This training would continue through university level, and would be reinforced in workplaces and through the media.

Click to expand...

Freedom of thought is the last hope of a dying democracy. Such ideas are the nail in the coffin.

Kindness said:

One could have said the same thing about a slaveless society in 1840, or a society with gender equality in 1900. The fact that it hasn't yet existed doesn't mean it's impossible.

Click to expand...

None of the things you've mentioned ever really went away in the first place. They have simply changed with the times like everything else.

For example, human history has seen slaves, serfs, and wage laborers. When you really get down to the nitty-gritty of it, is there really all that much of a difference between the three?

Granted, a serf has slightly more freedom and opportunity than a slave, and a wage laborer has more freedom than any of the other two. However, at the end of the day, they are all just human beings filling a niche created by society's recurrent demand for cheap and expendable masses of unskilled labor. They all fill the bottom rung of society's social ladder and all of their aspirations towards upwards mobility are hampered to a certain degree by their almost complete and total reliance upon their masters, lords, and employers to provide for their basic needs.

As long as it is necessary to utilize unskilled labor enmasse, it is inevitable that some version of the social archetype the "slave" repesents will always exist.

The same could be said of Oligarchy. While the manner in which the social impulse that leads to the creation of exclusivist ruling cliques has differed in expression throughout history, it would be very hard to argue that it hasn't always existed in some form or another. Whether they be hereditary, monetary, landed, personality based, or even religious, oligarchies have been a general rule throughout human history.

As a matter of fact, I would argue that the more complex a given society becomes, the greater the number of oligarchic cliques becomes. Even in today's supposedly "Democratic" societies, we have political oligarchies, corporate oligarchies, financial oligarchies, academic oligarchies, and legal oligarchies to name just a few. All dictate some aspect of our society's function in the day-to-day sense, and all jealously guard their power, privilege, and secrets from outsiders and the mere yokels who form the rank and file of the common man.

As with the slave archetype I mentioned before, I really don't see this changing any time soon.

While some like to harp on the supposed "end of religion," it isn't really happening either. If anything, more traditional forms of religion are simply being replaced by secular ideologies and philosophies which serve the same basic social purpose.

The above is only even true in the West anyway. Most of the rest of the world is still highly religious.

Finally, "Gender equality," while we're on the subject, is a joke. Modern society pays lip service to the idea, but I really have a hard time looking at it as being much more than a "Noble Lie" in the Platonic sense of the word.

First off, gender roles were never as strictly conformist in the past as the mainstream media would lead you to believe. It has always been fairly common for women to own property and manage their own affairs to a certain extent. Modern society only seems extraordinarily equal in this regard when viewed through the false filter of a past historical setting which never existed in the first place. Even modern societies (i.e. the Middle East) that seem excessively oppressive to women have only really become so relatively recently with the rise of reactionary extremist movements such as Wahhabism in the late 19th Century.

Secondly, even with all of our talk of "equality," gender roles haven't actually changed all that much. Men still gravitate towards leadership roles and are more likely to work outside the home than women. They are also far more likely to do dangerous and overtly physical jobs. Women are still the primary care givers for children. Nothing particularly earth shaking has really happened when you get down to brass tacks. Both genders are still filling more or less the same roles they were evolutionarily adapted to play.

To be perfectly honest, I haven't seen much of anything to convince me that humanity has "progressed" beyond it's baser nature when it comes to civil society. If anything, we have simply built upon it.

Wherever you look in human history, you are bound to see the same recurrent themes of exploitation, Oligarchy, Religiousity, Patriarchy, and factionalism appear, evolve, adapt, and reappear in updated forms time and time again.

This is exactly why Communism and Socialism do not work. They deny this innate nature, and are therefore left extremely vulnerable to the evils it can wreak if left unchecked in the interests of blind idealism

Kindness said:

One could have said the same thing about a slaveless society in 1840, or a society with gender equality in 1900. The fact that it hasn't yet existed doesn't mean it's impossible.

Click to expand...

We have theoretically tried Communist societies. Whether it was doomed to failure by corrupt leaders or if the leaders were corrupted by power, they have failed.

You could argue that these were not true communist societies, but think about it, in order to get to any environment that could possibly lead to a socialist society, someone is going to have to take power and control the process. Power corrupts.

Capitalism is an economic system, not a political system, but I believe that a capitalist constitutional representative democracy is the best functioning of all the bad functioning political systems we have devised. But anything can be broken, and I also happen to believe that America is badly broken right now as a result of the undue influence of capital on the political system. But I don't have any interest in throwing out the foundational model that has created the highest standard of living the world has ever seen (too bad it was 30 years ago) I just want to fix it.

I have had this argument with libertarians who claim we could have a libertarian society.

I have not seen one work anywhere, but I'll keep looking.

In the meantime, I'd prefer to go with what works, as unpleasant as it can be at times.

Kindness said:

When discussing my political views in "real life," one of the most common criticisms I get is that communism* is impossible because it is inconsistent with human nature.

These people say that we people are naturally, biologically driven to be selfish, lazy, greedy, devious, xenophobic, and hateful, and that a strong state, exploitative economic system (such as capitalism), and profit motive is necessary to keep people in line. I take the opposite view, that our current system of social relations (capitalism) conditions people to have the "human nature" be selfish, greedy, etc., and that people can be trained to be generous, compassionate, kind, and unselfish under another, less-oppressive set of social relations.

For those who take the former position, please provide a logical argument as to why you feel communism* is incompatible with human nature and to why you feel an exploitative system of social relations (like capitalism) is necessary to control human nature.

* I define "communism" as a peaceful global society in which there are no states, markets, money, weapons, or wars. All people contribute to society through their talents and freely take whatever they need from society's pool of resources. The saying "from each according to her ability, to each according to her need" is the guiding principle of such a society

Click to expand...

Pretty interesting question. :applaud

I tend to think that the "natural" state of things is pretty barbaric. A strong leader always seems to rise to the top. Historically that meant a lot of bloodshed and torture along the way. So although I party agree with the first position, I have to point out that nature evolves and so do our ideas over the best way to manage that kind of power. So to assume that whatever we see as natural, we should consider what was natural for that time. And that doesn't determine what would be natural at a later time. That would be applying Marx's view of Historicism which he described as the belief that the course of history is predetermined by scientific laws.

Marx contended that the clue to history, even to the history of ideas, is to be found in the development of the relations between man and his natural environment, the material world; that is to say, in his economic life, and not in his spiritual life. Economically it's the claim that the economic organization of society, the organization of our exchange of matter with nature, is fundamental for all social institutions and especially for their historical development.

It seems that over time we've come to agree on the social contract as the ideal to strive for. Within that social contract we understand that to maintain a civil society we live by laws and not the rule of some Divine Right of Kings. So having a government with checks and balances makes sense, allowing for the population to participate in their own governance. Clealy a raw capitalistic society will devour the country if left unchecked, reverting to the more primitive instincts of power through accumulation of wealth. That threatens the purpose of a government by the people and turns it into a Plutocracy. There would seem to be a conservative element to wanting to revert to a more primitive natural state. A desire to get back to a state of social darwinism, winner take all, chaos where only the strong survive. Obviously the only thing that prevents that kind of societal meltdown is a government of the people that stands in the way of an Authoritarian Plutocracy. We've clearly evolved on this. There are some that still drag their knuckles but we continue to evolve whether they like it or not.

Kindness said:

It's a governance body, but not a "government" as we know it today, just a group of people making decisions about human society. It has no real authority as we know it today -- it only issues recommendations -- and it certainly doesn't possess the monopoly on violence (the political scientific definition of a state). Violence, in fact, would not be acceptable under any circumstances, by the governance body or individual citizens.



They can voice their issues within community councils and inform their representatives. They're also free to work outside the "system" and do whatever they want, as long as it doesn't involve exploitation of people, non-human animals, or the planet, or any form of violence. If it does involve such things, they will be nonviolently resisted just like any other oppressor.



If it isn't critical to human or animal survival, the equality of all people, or the basic function of society, it is a matter of community choice. If the community feels it's more important to grow corn than soybeans, the farmer grows corn. If it's evenly split, the farmer makes her own decision on what to grow. If one crop requires more labor, then the farmer can have some local kids come in and help out. You're making this more complicated than it needs to be. A society is just a group of people caring for each other. I think friends know how to care for each other without some large state or corporate entity telling them how to do so.



As long as his consumption isn't depriving others of their needs, it is fine. If it is depriving others, then it is a problem and his community will talk to him about it.

Click to expand...

It's a governance body, but not a "government" as we know it today,just a group of people making decisions about human society.

Click to expand...

I think we call that a distinction without a difference. Under who's authority does the group make these decisions about human society, and do you have any choice on whether to follow their suggestions? I mean are they qualfied to make these decisions about how a human society should function? That leaves a lot of moral questions to resolve I think.

It has no real authority as we know it today -- it only issues recommendations just a group of people making decisions about human society

Click to expand...

So it makes recommendations but has no power to implement them? You say it has no authority, then who has the authority that you attribute to a group of people making decisions about human society? They have no real authority...except the authority to make decisions on what defines a human society, for everyone else? That's actually a lot of authority. Almost sounds like the Catholic Church. It definately sounds like Utopia.

Communism can exist in communities only. For example, 1 million people is not a community, it's 1 million people. Community is where everybody knows everybody else.

Kindness said:

The saying "from each according to her ability, to each according to her need" is the guiding principle of such a society[/B] [/I]

Click to expand...

Wrong! This fallacy is easily debunked as peoples needs are either practically endless (if I want a Ferrari, who should provide? How about a skyscraper?), either someone else will determine your needs (and may end up needing just a loaf of bread and a bottle of water, according to that who determines your needs).
The right principle is "from each according to her ability, to each according to her merits".

Adagio said:

I think we call that a distinction without a difference. Under who's authority does the group make these decisions about human society, and do you have any choice on whether to follow their suggestions?

Click to expand...

The consent of the people being governed. That is, all of humanity.

I mean are they qualfied to make these decisions about how a human society should function?

Click to expand...

Yes. They are representatives chosen by the communities from which they originate, and they have the social scientific education, administrative and interpersonal skills, and life experience and general knowledge necessary to make sound decisions about how to best orchestrate society.

That leaves a lot of moral questions to resolve I think.

Click to expand...

Such as? This is not intended to be an oligarchic system.

So it makes recommendations but has no power to implement them?

Click to expand...

Not by force. Any individual person or community has the right to ignore its' recommendations, as long as they do not pursue violent or exploitative action.

You say it has no authority, then who has the authority that you attribute to a group of people making decisions about human society?

Click to expand...

Authority -- defined as the ability to forcefully implement one's will -- does not exist on my view. Each individual person has the freedom to perform whatever act she chooses, so long as it does not exploit or do violence to any conscious creature. The international advisory body is there for the "big picture." Its' purview is issues that are capable of affecting all of humanity, for instance, climate change, global resource allocation, inter-regional disputes, and so on.