# Political Systems: Communism to "Natural Government Formation"



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

Hello TCers!

It seems as if ever since primitive forms of human beings existed and lived together we have somehow needed to live under some more powerful people who decide the right and the wrong, the good and the bad. Basically, what seems like the majority of the population has a need to live under a government. Back in the age of the primitive humans they would have probably lived in tribes with a hierarchical structure of a leading figure (most likely male) who has authority over the other men, women and children and is basically the most important member of the tribe. It seems as if this sort of hierarchy is a very natural way to live as it is also apparent in other species living today. This form of early government is probably what all the political systems of today have evolved from. But my question is, if this is the government primitive humans would have lived under and the government that modern political systems evolved from, how did that government form in the first place and what did it form from? My answer: workers united, my theory of "natural government formation" and a bit of corruption and secret police on the side.

Have you ever thought of very ealry humans living in a classless, anarchist community of people that are all equally important to each other before this group of people turn into a tribe with a strict hierarchical structure? My theory is that these early humans felt like they couldn't just manage to live with everyone being equal. Some would have felt they wanted things to be done their own way and wanted to be the boss. I suppose this greed of power is what transformed this community of people of equal importance (workers united, if you like) into some sort of dictatorship which got more complicated and turned into more modern political systems, feudal systems etc. which naturally is just how humans subconsciously feel like they need to live. This is what I call "natural government formation."

Now that I have said that, let's rewind to before someone had an urge to be more important than the others and focus on this classless community of people who don't feel like they want to have authority over everyone else, imagine how much simpler life would be now. If we kept this up right to the present day it would be like pure communism is the only form of government humans can recognise and because they have lived with it for so long we just instinctively turn back to it even if new forms of government are put forward. I have heard people say that communism works in theory but not in practise (even though I must say pretty good things have happened in countries that had become communist) but I think that the reason it might not be fully successful in practise is because of those early humans who wanted to be more important than the rest and gradually formed tribes with hierarchical structures. It has become a habit now for people who want power over people to try and _get_ power over people. It's why I think that pure communism is fantastic in theory, but can become a little corrupt in practise and naturally form into another very corrupt form of government that is most certainly _not_ communist.

ComposerOfAvantGarde


----------



## emiellucifuge (May 26, 2009)

There was never a humanity in an egalitarian, classless society. The species from which we evolved already most likely had hierarchies and social structure.

Neither was there ever a realisation that government was necessary. It stems entirely from the natural instinct to dominate weaker individuals and therefore mate more succesfully.


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

Can I ask what time periods you are speculating about?


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

emiellucifuge said:


> There was never a humanity in an egalitarian, classless society. The species from which we evolved already most likely had hierarchies and social structure.
> 
> Neither was there ever a realisation that government was necessary. It stems entirely from the natural instinct to dominate weaker individuals and therefore mate more succesfully.


I didn't think of that. But let's think _hypothetically_ and say that there is some intelligent life form that *did* began this way and some individuals of this species began to want power over others in the way I have stated above.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

Polednice said:


> Can I ask what time periods you are speculating about?


Okay, this will now become a hypothetical discussion due to some facts I seem to have overlooked.


----------



## Cnote11 (Jul 17, 2010)

I'm not buying the theory that government was made for mating purposes. Seems to be the answer to any question these days...


----------



## Cnote11 (Jul 17, 2010)

Why did the chicken cross the road? So he could mate more successfully.


----------



## emiellucifuge (May 26, 2009)

Im not saying thats the direct reason politicians enter government today. I was simply addressing COAG's claims about the beginning of social hierarchies.


----------



## Cnote11 (Jul 17, 2010)

I'm talking about the advent of government.


----------



## emiellucifuge (May 26, 2009)

Well what do you suppose?


----------



## Cnote11 (Jul 17, 2010)

I'm sorry, but when you say "it" in your post are you referring to social hierarchy or government? Perhaps I read your post wrong.

Either way, not everything is about mating. People form tribes and hierarchy based on common goals and usefulness. Take ancient Mesopotamia. Those who were skilled in things like weaving or metal work would be higher in the hierarchy because they were more useful to society. Priests even further up because they brought blessings from the gods to the city-state. Society was made in the first place because it was found that an agricultural society had greater benefits over hunter/gatherer societies. This allowed them to stay in one place and allowed for a constant flow of food, shelter, and protection from weather and predators. It made for a better quality of life. As society grew more complex it needed a form of regulation. I often feel that when people look at motives that this evolutionary "need-to-mate" becomes so dominate in the thinking. We also forget about pure survival. 

What communism attempts to do is take the hierarchy out by giving people equal opportunity and weight. The hierarchy will persist depending on what society values. If it is strength, which they used to be in the place of intelligence, it would be the strongest who were at the top of the hierarchy. This makes sense, because often times the strongest warriors were needed to keep the tribe safe. They put high value on these for their own safety and their own propagation, and therefore put them at the top of the hierarchy. This is the same as today. Those who produce in order to sustain the nation are able to take their place at the top of the hierarchy. Again, what communism/socialism attempts to do is displace this production from the hands of few into the hands of many. It attempts to eliminate concentration, which is often a bargaining tool for power.


----------



## emiellucifuge (May 26, 2009)

Sorry yes I was unclear: the 'it' is social hierarchy.

This has all been unclear and a misunderstanding. I wont address the majority of your post except your claim regarding survival vs reproduction. To me this is a bit of a superfluous distinction. The 'goal' of life is to continue living yes, in order to do this it is necessary to reproduce, it is therefore also necessary to survive long enough to reproduce. The two are infintely wound up within eachother. One does fight to survive but I imagine its not too ridiculous to submit that people risk their lives for the right to reproduce, or for the survival of their offspring.

I dont have all the answers as to the whys but I imagine our distant ancestors found it necessary to group for protection, division of labour, cooperative hunting and any other number of reasons. In a group of such animals competition will inevitably arise and those possessing the necessary skills and traits will inevitably seek to repress and dominate others in order to reproduce more often and with the best partners, and also to guarantee the safety of its offspring.

This is only concerned with the formation of social hierarchy in early humans, as I believed COAG had overlooked some things in his OP. Furthermore, government can be seen as an extension of all this. Communism is an intellectual construct of ideals, opposed to basic human nature and therefore can never be succesfull imo.


----------



## Cnote11 (Jul 17, 2010)

I do think communism has an attempt to be successful. I think basic human nature can change with cognition and environment impact. I dislike your idea of those higher in the hierarchy repressing other people. This does happen, yes, but it isn't necessarily the case. You forget that other people do elevate other people in social hierarchy for their own uses and purposes. It can benefit those lower in the social hierarchy to put someone above them at times. They are a valued possession for the community. Think of ants and bees. I guess it is how you frame it. I realise they are intertwined, but some people when analyzing these days fail to mention any mode of survival and just purely go for reproduction. 

There is also a difference between individual survival and species survival. I personally don't care about having children and I don't personally care if humans die out or not. I don't believe that it is necessarily an innate goal. So, in order to keep surviving as an individual, depending on the condition, one can choose to pass up reproduction if it serves him better at surviving in the climate. For our ancestors, surely reproduction gave the individual an advantage of surviving, thereby increasing his want for collective survival, forming tribes, families, and later nations in order to ensure allegiance that would make reproduction and raising children is worth it.


----------



## emiellucifuge (May 26, 2009)

Now consider that the species is composed of individuals such as yourself, who have no desire to reproduce, and that, as you propose, it would increase survival chances by not reproducing in the habitated climate. One generation would pass, each member would grow old and eventually die out without leaving any descendants. At one point the species is extinct. Obviously an evolutionary dead end, and it is impossible that anyone's ancestors did not see reproduction as a necessity. If ive missed your point I apologise, but thats what you seemed to be saying, and I find it quite ridiculous.


----------



## Cnote11 (Jul 17, 2010)

No, I said it isn't necessarily innate. I don't care because I live in a current climate where I don't have to care. I did say our ancestors benefited greatly from reproduction, which gave them a good cause to care about doing it. As we become more populated and move from agriculture to city-centered populations we can afford not to care about reproduction anymore, and can actually be benefited from not reproducing. In fact, in social psychology studies majority of people who have children are reported to have a negative dip in quality of life and there isn't a spike back up because there is actually no substantial benefit in having children in our society. There would be substantial pay-off for having children for our ancestors. If I lived back then, then perhaps I'd be very interested in reproduction and the propagation of our species. I hope this idea is true in some sense, because then it can act as a self-adjusting mechanism for population control.


----------



## emiellucifuge (May 26, 2009)

Well I suppose it is important whether we are talking about the importance of the individual or of the species. It is undeniably necessary for the survival of any species that reproduction occurs. Now I recall that you have a fiancé, and I am almost certain that you have engaged in intercourse (I dont wish to make this personal, so please tell me if I am offending you). You may have the intellectual notion that you do not wish to have children, but by engaging in this act you are, as far as your body is aware, engaging in reproduction. The mechanisms of ensuring we reproduce are almost entirely concerned with incentivising the act of intercourse - whether or not having children increases or decreases the quality of your life after the fact is hardly of evolutionary consequence.

I can agree that there may be certain rare individuals who lack reproductive drive in any generation. Perhaps this does have a positive effect on overall survival.


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

Cnote11 said:


> I'm not buying the theory that government was made for mating purposes. Seems to be the answer to any question these days...


Interesting though!


----------



## Cnote11 (Jul 17, 2010)

emiellucifuge said:


> Well I suppose it is important whether we are talking about the importance of the individual or of the species. It is undeniably necessary for the survival of any species that reproduction occurs. Now I recall that you have a fiancé, and I am almost certain that you have engaged in intercourse (I dont wish to make this personal, so please tell me if I am offending you). You may have the intellectual notion that you do not wish to have children, but by engaging in this act you are, as far as your body is aware, engaging in reproduction. The mechanisms of ensuring we reproduce are almost entirely concerned with incentivising the act of intercourse - whether or not having children increases or decreases the quality of your life after the fact is hardly of evolutionary consequence.
> 
> I can agree that there may be certain rare individuals who lack reproductive drive in any generation. Perhaps this does have a positive effect on overall survival.


Yes, our bodies may be geared towards reproduction, but this certainly doesn't mean we have to reproduce. We aren't creatures solely of evolutionary and biological pre-determinism in my opinion. We do have intellectual processes and that much is evident by the fact that I take the reproduction out of sex and use it for merely hedonistic purposes. I'm taking the biological aspects of my body and using my intellectual prowess to turn them on their head and have them serve me, instead of me serving them. You are, of course, not offending me.

Here are some articles you might want to check out:

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505263_162-57371613/sex-turns-off-many-young-japanese-men-studies/

http://blogs.wsj.com/japanrealtime/2011/01/13/no-sex-please-were-young-japanese-men/

I'm not sure what conclusions you can actually draw from this, but it is interesting nonetheless.


----------



## Cnote11 (Jul 17, 2010)

For the record, I also am not very interested in sex, except for with my fiancee, which is a constant 24/7 onslaught of sexual activity. (If I'm offending myself, I am sorry) This isn't to say I'm not a very sexual person, but my sexuality isn't directed in the same way as most people's. I have it within my mind the negative aspects that sex can bring upon and that it isn't worth having sex with others for. Risks include diseases and unwanted pregnancies, therefore being stuck with some insufferable woman. This has caused my mind to not process the average woman as something sexual. It is all about what the risks are compared to the benefits for me and my mind follows accordingly depending on what I evaluate the person as. Now, does this mean this changes my biology? Probably not. My biology probably is still attempts to react to reproduce. However, my mind conquers that of biology.


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

Cnote11 said:


> However, my mind conquers that of biology.


I hope that's a joke and you don't seriously believe that's a valid dichotomy!


----------



## Cnote11 (Jul 17, 2010)

My mind conquers dichotomies.


----------



## Cnote11 (Jul 17, 2010)

It was a joke in a way though, by the way.


----------



## Igneous01 (Jan 27, 2011)

i like men.


----------



## Cnote11 (Jul 17, 2010)

Igneous01 said:


> i like men.


You and Polednice both.


----------



## Cnote11 (Jul 17, 2010)

Now THAT is biological pre-determinism 

or _is it_?


----------



## emiellucifuge (May 26, 2009)

Well ive admitted the possibility of anomalies (mutations if you will), and the more I know about you the more you seem like one!


----------



## Cnote11 (Jul 17, 2010)

What about the Japanese men though?


----------



## cwarchc (Apr 28, 2012)

We're all ants


----------



## Cnote11 (Jul 17, 2010)

Mmm, I love ants. I almost gave up my career path now to study ants.


----------



## emiellucifuge (May 26, 2009)

I studied ants for a while, went to Africa to examine the Pangolin's diet. Ive got thousands of ants of different species all lying in tubes, in ethanol, in my room waiting to be identified, but no one can


----------



## Cnote11 (Jul 17, 2010)

That's so cool. How did you get that opportunity?


----------



## emiellucifuge (May 26, 2009)

Networking is the key. I impressed a man who owns the 12000ha reserve where the research was being conducted.


----------



## cwarchc (Apr 28, 2012)

Ants are amazing
Don't diss ants
After the nuclear war, they will inherit the planet


----------



## cwarchc (Apr 28, 2012)

True communism is altuism in in purest form


----------

