- Jan 20, 2005
- Reaction score
- Political Leaning
I'll let you know that I am a young (even though you may think less of me now that I reveal that detail) anarcho-communist. I realize the fallacies of socialism quite well (although in my opinion these fallacies are all political, not economic), and view it as unneccesary. That being said, I do not oppose the establishment of socialism. In my opinion, we can view socialism as a lesser evil to capitalism. That is why I use the little socialist graphics in the upper left there. So, in short, I think socialism is an improvement, but it is not neccesary, so we may as well skip it entirely.Alan Ryan said:No, I haven't assumed that you are a Marxist: in fact, I've had the suspicion that you might be presenting a case for communism as a kind of mental exercise. For all I know, you could be a college student "trying out" various political philosophies before synthesising a world view by selecting from the spectrum of political beliefs that appear both rational and congenial to you.
You begin your opening statement about the Marxist view of human nature with a supposition about mine. But my views are not being examined here (except perhaps indirectly); the focus is on Marx.
I claim that all political doctrines are founded in a theory of human nature and disputes commonly reflect differences over what this nature is. Thus it seems that communism must assume that the aggressive, acquisitive, competitive, and power-seeking impulses of men are not "natural", but entirely result from the mutability of social conditions.
You say (if I might paraphrase and amplify) the Marxist view is that man is a social animal and human nature is not created by a "mystical agency" or simply by biological imperatives, but it is formed by man's social environment. I would go a little further and suggest it is a sine qua non (in Marxist thought) that man is neither inherently good nor evil: his nature is plastic and will be moulded by the social relations and the material circumstances in which he finds himself.
If we add what I have claimed to what you've said, I think we have the basis for a conversation about human nature. Unless you intend to modify anything in this prologue, I'll assume that it's OK to proceed without further quibbles ?
For the time being, I suggest we leave the Marxist theory of history out of the discussion: we can come back to it later if you're not fatigued by my pedantry before that.
There's nothing to respond to in your post, and I'm not too sure if you agree or disagree with my view of human nature. So go ahead and begin this conversation, as I'm not sure how to begin it, not knowing your opinion and such.