UKC

I just stumbled across this and found it very uplifting, so I'm sharing it here in case someone else does too.

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2020/may/09/the-real-lord-of-the-flies-wh...

In reply to deepsoup:

nice one, thanks

In reply to deepsoup:

I hated being made to read lord of the flies at school.  This is much better.  

In reply to deepsoup:

Fascinating, thanks for sharing.

Incredible that it's not more widely known. It certainly would be if it happened today.

In reply to deepsoup:

Thanks, brilliant 

In reply to deepsoup:

"you should always look for what is good and positive in people.”

In reply to deepsoup:

Amazing story.

In reply to deepsoup:

An amazing story and a riveting article. I described it to my wife and her comment was, “well it’s a good job that they didn’t go to public schools otherwise it might have been a different story”.

Alan

In reply to deepsoup:

Scientists and advocates of capitalism would have us believe that human nature is survival of the fittest, dog eat dog, I'm alright Jack, greed, selfishness and class is good as it is natural when in fact it is the productive forces which dictate this, which is the exact opposite of human nature. 

In reply to Pefa:

That's not at all true.  Scientists really don't think that.  And by the way, "survival of the fittest" does not mean "dog eat dog" nor does it imply "selfishness".  The best way of surviving for a social animal such as humans is cooperating!  That's why we are good at cooperating. 

And nor do capitalists think like that. What is the best way of succeeding in business? Again, it is cooperating!   Absolutely no-one ever got rich on their own, people only get rich through cooperating with others.  Indeed the very word "company" speaks of a "company" of like-minded people. 

The person who got this wrong is William Golding, who was neither a scientist nor a capitalist. 

In reply to marsbar:

Me too. I couldn't relate to the way most of the characters behaved at all. To learn that Golding was a rather troubled character himself might explain that.

In reply to deepsoup:

Thought this was going to be about Beelzebub...

In reply to Coel Hellier:

They don't think in terms of evolution and applying that to human nature? 

I wasn't writing an essay and i'm not saying it does, its a random bunch of cliches and terms that do sum up the practice of capitalism. 

Of course it is and if you don't we will go to war against you. 

That's absolutely correct, without workers doing all the work for them capitalists would not be capitalists. 

I'm not referring to him I'm referring to the tired old excuse for capitalism that has been wheeled out in millions of online debates, publications, talks, speeches, films etc that socialism is a great idea if it wasn't for human nature. 

Edit--Exemplified in LotF and capitalism. 

If I had a £ for every time I've had it thrown at me in debates with people I'd be a capitalist. 

Ps Edit - folks you are wasting your time with all the dislikes as I couldn't care less, my God if I did I wouldnt be on here.lol  😎

In reply to deepsoup:

Nice to hear another story about human cooperation. Our ancestors were hunter gatherers and most of the archeological evidence points to them living in groups of about 30 individuals. Cooperation would have been essential to their survival- a single human would have been very vulnerable on the savannah no matter how superior his intelligence but in a group working together with burnt sharp points on the end of a straight sturdy sticks they become much more formidable and hunting would have been easier.  The bushmen of South Africa are nearest modern equivalent (they prefer to be called !Kung) and seem to fit into the above model up to a point. Hierarchy seem to rear its head seriously when humans discover agriculture and when populations got larger. 'Ownership' of land was a big gamechanger

In reply to deepsoup:

Found LOTF bloody depressing and bailed on the next Golding I tried (The Spire?) Am so glad to finally read about the reality rather than the fiction. Very uplifting indeed, especially in these troubled times.

Thank you for spotting this and sharing it with the rest of us - very much in the spirit of cooperation portrayed by the article.

Mick

In reply to Pefa:

Evolution and science does not say that people are selfish and uncaring.  It says that they are social and cooperative mammals (with a balance between self-interest and cooperative selflessness).

As for capitalism, well that is a highly social and cooperative enterprise.  All capitalist money-making involves cooperating amicably with other people.  The essence of it is trade, two people exchanging goods for mutual advantage. 

(Yes, there can be exploitation if there's a large power differential, but that is always a problem with large power differentials. Capitalism works best with people of similar stature willingly cooperating.)

In reply to Coel Hellier:

Survival of the fittest ie for the strongest, death for the weakest. Freeze to death homeless, can't afford health care etc

Or using people as animals(slaves) for 300 years, sending kids out on 12 hour shifts, shooting striking workers, invading or threatening every country in the world bar 27, imposing your exploitative system on them, using starvation and countless wars as tools of subjugation yeah lovely cooperation. 

And that's just British capitalists 

The human nature argument again eh? I wondered how long it would take to come out mistakenly or unconsciously  as it is so ingrained in fact I do believe you used it on myself many moons ago.

In reply to Pefa:

That's a complete misunderstanding of evolution.  "Fittest" means "best fitted to the ecological niche", or "has what it takes to survive".  And, being a good cooperator is (for social animals) what best enables them to survive and reproduce.  So, for social animals, "survival of the fittest" means "survival of those who are best at cooperating with others in order to best survive". 

Your understanding of capitalism is equally faulty. It amounts to free enterprise -- and that means people cooperating when they choose to, when they see advantage to doing so.  Which they do.

In reply to deepsoup:

I reckon a group of Scouts would work it out well enough.

In reply to deepsoup:

Reminded me of this.  

In reply to deepsoup:

Enjoyed reading that, thanks.

In reply to Pefa:

It's a shorthand way of letting you know we think you're talking bollocks. Which, in this instance, you are.

In reply to deepsoup:

Coincidentally just read it a few minutes ago....I had no idea this happened or that there was an Oz connection so good to see it getting a mention.

In reply to deepsoup:

The bit about one of the lads fashioning a guitar from a bit of driftwood, half a coconut and some wires, and using it to keep everyone entertained, had me wondering if this was some weird spoof, I have to admit 😃

In reply to Removed Userjess13:

A pack of humans can hunt any large animal and some species to extinction even in pre-history.

Big brain and language means we can plan, cooperate and transmit what we learn.

In reply to deepsoup:

It is indeed uplifting - thanks for posting that

The question remains, though - which scenario is more likely when such things happen again in real life..... the above events, or what happened in the book THE LORD OF THE FLIES?

Anyone can guess, but I suppose it might be impossible to know. But I know which I would choose, sadly. It's depressing

Years ago I read about an experiment (sorry, no link) where a group of boys were isolated for a while in one house (no adults), and a group of girls in another house. The boys were soon forming gangs and fighting: the girls were soon cooperating/ assigning tasks among the group/ getting along fine. The psychologists had to stop the experiment early before any of the boys got hurt

In reply to profitofdoom:

In any real situation, the challenges of mere survival would be sufficiently major and stark that the boys would have to focus everything on that, and would realise they needed each other and needed to cooperate. 

If the house included a well-stocked larder and refrigerator, so that the boys had little to do but fight, then that would be expected.  If a real situation, starting to get hungry would focus minds.

In reply to deepsoup:

Found some footage on the youtube. Great story, riviting.

youtube.com/watch?v=SaMwgCbelGc&

In reply to marsbar:

There is good evidence that care for group members goes back a million years or more.  For example, there is evidence from Neanderthal skeletons showing recovery from injuries that were sufficiently severe that they would have needed support and care from others while recovering. 

E.g.  http://www.sci-news.com/othersciences/anthropology/neanderthals-healthcare-...

In reply to olddirtydoggy:

That was great ! pretty small island....

In reply to Alan James - Rockfax:

They did.

It was St. Andrews, as quoted in the article "a strict Catholic boarding school"

http://www.standrewtonga.yolasite.com/

In reply to Pefa:

Absolutely.

Human nature would demonstrate that when asked to do a simple thing like stay indoors to protect others from a fatal highly infectious disease, we would all comply, happy to put up with a degree of inconvenience in order to protect our fellow humans...

In reply to marsbar:

Wow! What a deeply perceptive comment by Margaret Mead.

Mick  

In reply to off-duty:

Except that whether stay-at-home policies actually protect anyone is rather dubious. 

"Stay-home policies were not associated with a decline in incidence, [...] Dr Brainard said: “This result really surprised us and shows that stay at home orders may not be required to control the outbreak, provided that this does not lead to more mass gatherings."

https://www.uea.ac.uk/about/-/new-study-reveals-blueprint-for-getting-out-o...

Asking people to adopt policies "to protect our fellow humans" is one thing.  Asking them to adopt the policies for rules-are-rules reasons is somewhat different. 

In reply to marsbar:

Ah yes, good point - I read that a while ago too, but hadn't made the connection.

In reply to Coel Hellier:

I didn't realise that article had such a widespread readership, sunbathers, picnickers, VE day street celebrators....

Because they are obviously breaching guidance based on scientific advice - otherwise you might anticipate they would all follow pefa's suggested natural human nature tendencies to stay indoors for the greater good of society....

In reply to Luke90:

Given the time I wonder if it would have been had they been six European white boys.

I was taught about Florence Nightingale at school in the '70s, had never heard of Mary Seacole until many years later.

In reply to olddirtydoggy:

That looks like the documentary could be great, fingers crossed. 

Such a shame the trailer has that awful music instead of a proper soundtrack.  It's frustrating being able to see Kolo speaking but not hear his voice. 

In reply to deepsoup:

I remember reading about this years ago, can't think where though so thanks for the link. I'm surprised that he says it's only recently that scientists started looking into cooperation though -  Kropotkin's Mutual Aid must be well over a century old. 

In reply to off-duty:

Or perhaps -- like most people -- they can work out for themselves that sunbathing and picnicking with members of ones household does not spread the virus and does no harm to anyone.

In reply to nastyned:

Indeed Darwin understood the social nature of humans, saying that "Man" had succeeded owing ...

"... to his intellectual faculties, to his social habits, which lead him to aid and defend his fellows, ...", and in the next sentence says that "these characters" are of "supreme importance".

He goes on to say that: "The small strength and speed of man, his want of natural weapons, etc., are more than counterbalanced, firstly, by his intellectual powers, through which he has formed for himself weapons, tools, etc., ...  and, secondly, by his social qualities which lead him to give and receive aid from his fellow-men."

He then spends a couple of chapters of Descent of Man discussing the evolution of social animals and humans as social animals. 

In reply to Coel Hellier:

Yep. Social responsibility extends as far as "Well, I'm alright Jack". 

And that's why we can't have nice things.

In reply to Blue Straggler:

But..  but..  you're a musician aren't you?  I'm not musical at all, but after water, food and shelter (ie: survival), it wouldn't surprise me at all if music was the next highest priority for lots of people.  The driftwood coconut guitar sounds more sophisticated than a diddley bow.

In reply to deepsoup:

Good read that, thanks for sharing.

In reply to off-duty:

How did you leap from "doing no harm to anyone" to "Well, I'm alright Jack" (which is pretty much the opposite)?

In reply to Coel Hellier:

How about considering the impact of your actions on other people. And that includes the visual impact of you deciding to go and do whatever activity it is that you have decided you can do in a "safe manner" when observed by everyone else who doesn't see the precautions you have decided you are going to abide by.

Not to mention the selfish impact - if they can go sunbathing, why can't I? Just because they got here first, why should I have to go home? That beach is full of sunbathers, so why can't I drive to it, they can't all be local.  Etc etc etc....

(The irony of the fact that I was actually agreeing with you regarding pefa's post about the inherent socialism of human nature...)

In reply to deepsoup:

I own a piano but that makes me no more a "musician" than my climbing equipment makes me a mountaineer, my bikes make me a cyclist, or the ice skates I once bought on a New Year's Day quite probably still drunk from the night before, make me a figure skater

In reply to off-duty:

That would not be a problem if the rules and advice focused on what actually mattered in terms of transmission. 

And if they do, that would be fine.  Unless the different groups of picnickers and sunbathers start sharing cutlery or snogging each other, really it is not a problem. 

In reply to Coel Hellier:

I'm glad you have solved the problem of COVID19, based on one review.

Do you have their full definition of what comprises a "mass gathering" 

In reply to Coel Hellier:

The definition of 'survival of the fittest' is - 

 The continued existence of organisms which are best adapted to their environment, with the extinction of others, as a concept in the Darwinian theory of evolution. 

Herbert Spencer first used the phrase, after reading Charles Darwin's On the Origin of Species, in his Principles of Biology (1864), in which he drew parallels between his own economic theories and Darwin's biological ones: "This survival of the fittest, which I have here sought to express in mechanical terms, is that which Mr. Darwin has called 'natural selection', or the preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life."[1]

Darwin responded positively to Alfred Russel Wallace's suggestion of using Spencer's new phrase "survival of the fittest" as an alternative to "natural selection", and adopted the phrase in The Variation of Animals and Plants under Domestication published in 1868.[1][2] In On the Origin of Species, he introduced the phrase in the fifth edition published in 1869,[3][4] intending it to mean "better designed for an immediate, local environment".[5][6]

Now look at the racist genocides and wars that accompanied the slave epoch which merged with the capitalist epoch 250 years ago and how they continued and increased. If you are poor you die young if circumstances are favourable to you then you don't, survival of the fittest. Best 'designed for immediate, local environment'. 

The driven capitalist British Empire forced an alien system on India, China, Africa, Australia, Caribbean etc etc as did all the other capitalist countries in order to plunder them and if they didn't obey they were murdered.And I don't think even you would call that 'amicably cooperating'. It is however a survival of the fittest as those with better weapons(evolved tools) and better organised armies and tactics (social cooperation) win and the losers become vassals or die. 

No, its do as we tell you or death. 

Now I know how hard it is for advocates of capital when the truth of its history is shown - that's when I always get blocked from fb forums - but it is what it is and I won't be letting the capitalists and their apologists get away with rewriting history. 

So as I was saying this little story from Tonga is just another nail in the coffin lid (now full of nails)of that tired old capitalist argument that - 

Socialism is a great idea if it wasn't for human nature. 

In reply to captain paranoia:

Oh I've upset you over something in the past haven't I? Join the club it's full of people like you who I've proved wrong on debates on here but they are too proud to admit it.

Dislikes have nothing to do with being wrong they are an indication of how many people dislike what you just wrote in a reply. Their reasons? Don't like you because you proved them wrong in a debate before or atm, don't like your politics, don't like you, genuinely disagree yet strangely will never debate the issue with you because they know they are wrong.

It's mildly interesting to watch good debates unfold when someone writes a reply that's wrong but gets a ton of likes then someone elses reply is correct but gets a ton of dislikes or no likes ad nauseum . As I say dislikes have nothing to do with being wrong they are just an indication of how many ukcers don't like what you say or don't like you.How right or wrong someone is is in the unfolding debate and nothing to do with dislikes, or likes for that matter. 

Good try though. But not good enough. 

In reply to Pefa:

Such things have been a feature of humanity long before capitalism and are nothing to do with capitalism.  They're just as prevalent in other systems.

Except that imperialism and expansionist conquest were hardly invented by "capitalists", and have been a feature of humans throughout history. 

Yep, that is indeed an accurate description of life in the liberal-democratic West with its capitalist economies and universal franchise and huge respect for individual liberties and human rights. 

Well it's true.  "Do as we tell you or death" tends to be the outcome of attempting actual common ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange, as demonstrated by the USSR and China.  

In reply to Pefa:

Is that how your mind works?

No, I don't get upset by the things people say here. I barely pay attention to who is making a comment, or remember what people have said in the past.

It's just that, in this case, I think you're talking bollocks.

In reply to deepsoup:

what they don't tell you is there were originally 30 of them and the remaining 6 ate the others.

Not only that, they only ate their favourite bits from each lad they murdered, so could have only eaten 3 if they'd finished one before starting another.

In reply to marsbar:

I far prefer the Swallows and Amazons view of the world to Lord of the Flies - must be going soft.  Lord of the Flies reminds me too much of school ... (the content, not the reading of it)

In reply to Coel Hellier:

As I stated when I mentioned the slave/fuedal epoch, slavery was always an industry going back to earliest written records but it became a much bigger industry during capitalism. 

Prior to capitalism agreed. 

They are a barbaric trait that continued long before capitalism but was greatly magnified by capitalism and by which capitalism grew much stronger just like it did through its continued 250 years of slavery. 

But if you want to have your own economic system that isn't capitalist then you will be attacked by all means including war, assassination of leaders, genocide, invasion, proxy war, economic warfare you name it. 

Yes I agree socialists are no passive innocents in this and when pushed will fight back but the socialist maxim 'class war to end war' holds true. We want an end to all war, exploitation and imperialism. 

In reply to captain paranoia:

Your reaction is ott for this current Internet chat so I presume the reason you are so annoyed with me which causes you to be so insulting has nothing to do with the civilised discourse on this thread and more to do with something I have written in the past. 

Ps. You will do what you do and I don't mind either way. So be easy on yourself as getting pissed off about this stuff is just hurting you, trust me I know all about getting insulting and angry in debates and it just makes us ill. Best to step away from all this nonsense when you get that rising temper or need to insult and forget about it, just leave it, people, including me will do what we do and in the end what does it matter? It doesn't and we all want the same things. 

In reply to Pefa:

Slavery - the Russian communist version was the Gulags. People sent to camps in the outer reaches of Siberia and forced to work in incredible harsh conditions so the government didn't have to pay workers to do the same job, they had no rights and many perished.

The main benefit of the great Russian socialist experiment seems to be that Russia was industrialised and hence joined the modern world but at a hell of a price.

I hardly dare mention the C word as you seem to come out with all guns blazing but it has up to now been successful in raising the living standards of millions throughout the world and not only in the west. Whether it will continue to do so remains to be seen.

Now where's that parapet?

In reply to Removed Userjess13:

Institutional slavery in the modern USA is very much a part of their prison system too, has been ever since the enactment of the 13th Amendment.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penal_labor_in_the_United_States

Aw.  Now look what you made me do.  And I thought I'd started such a happy thread.
Good old UKC - unlike a desert island, there's always someone ready to piss on your chips.

In reply to Removed Userjess13:

Ah here we see the effects of 100% undiluted capitalist lies on the ordinary person as for one, wages were paid to inmates at exactly the same level as ordinary workers were paid outside. 

You saying they had no rights is you saying you have no real knowledge of that situation given some of the rights I shall name, for example inmates were allowed 2 weeks annual holidays at home. There were cabins for married inmates. Families were allowed to stay with prisoners, no convict or prison uniforms were allowed, savings from work could be sent home to your family. No leg irons or handcuffs were used (unlike in capitalist countries), there were common living areas and no cells, there was complete freedom of movement in the gulag. There was Education, theatre, concerts and sports. 

In at least 3 Gulags in the far East Japanese prisoners liked it so much they decided to stay around and set up communities in the neighbouring towns. 

Mortality rates during the worst year of the socialist period, which was 1942 were half the mortality rate of every year of the Tsarist reign and were only excessive due to the fact antibiotics had not been created by Russians yet but when they did in the early 1950s the gulag mortality rate plummeted. 

True but a wee bit more complicated though I liked the Russian comment (I can't remember by whom) that Stalin took us from a wooden plough to a nuclear superpower and Gorbachev-Yeltsin took us from being a nuclear superpower back to the wooden plough. 

True but at what cost and do we really need all this stuff and the cycle of waste and over production on a finite planet? But who is going to vote for less stuff when they see a bus full of super billionaires who own the same wealth as 3.5 billion people? No one, its a mess. In socialist societies there is no class, there is no mega rich so it is better as everyone is more equal in wealth and not being ripped off by a middle man getting rich on others toil, there is more togetherness and sense that we are one rather than constant fighting to keep from unemployment, homelessness and poverty whilst others have unbelievable riches. Capitalism is unsustainable and this fact is now coming home to roost even though the most ardent fan of capitalism probably acknowledges it unconsciously. 

😋 There really is only one side and we and every other being are on it. 

In reply to Pefa:

Ah here we see the effects of 100% undiluted Soviet communist lies on the ordinary person. Your portrayal of the Gulags makes them sound like Butlins in Siberia. 2 weeks holiday at home - how on earth did they do that if they lived in Moscow let alone Kiev.  Their are many first hand accounts of life in the Gulags and they certainly dont paint a picture of a holiday camp. But I suppose your reply will be that they are just 'Capitalist lies' which seems to be your catch all. Being accused of 'Capitalist lies' in Soviet Russia often resulted either execution or many years in the Gulag. Being accused of 'Soviet communist lies' in the Capitalist west mainly caused raised eyebrows (excepting Nazi Germany and the McCarthy era in the USA both of which are mostly reviled in the West).

In reply to Removed Userjess13:

Ever heard of a thing called a train? Its a series of big carriages with seats that runs on rails and goes very fast over great distances and carries many people in journeys there and back.Seriously though the vast majority of inmates in the gulag system were there on short 6 month or 1 year sentences and not considered a serious criminal threat so were allowed back on visits. Now I don't know which Butlins you went to but were you made to work on building projects when you were there? 

I know it seems strange to people raised on anti-socialist lies like those of the later exposed fascist sympathiser Solzynitsen and Hollywood make believe about the gulag system as well as the sea of lies in the capitalist media which is all we are fed but the rights I stated above are all true as is the reason for the mortality rate.The real truth about the Soviet Union always comes as a shock to those in the west who only get info from capitalist sources all their lives and capitalists only have one actual enemy. And that enemy is socialism and socialists so it is in their interests to keep the lies going forever. 

I didn't say it was a holiday camp, people were there as prisoners to do time in dormitories with others and work hard. But they were paid the same as outside workers for their work so I don't know where you got that lie from though it isn't your fault as the lies are everywhere and it doesn't surprise me as the lies told by capitalist institutions and individuals are incredible when it comes to the USSR. Some prisoners got it much worse than others though for example many Nazis during the war got treated very badly as did Tsarist anti-semite troops of the White armies after the class war and those plotting with those enemies, they suffered most but as all prisons in all countries before 1950 they were places made to be unpleasant to teach a lesson and make you not want to go back but prisoners did have many rights as I have pointed out. You must remember from 1919-1945 the young USSR was had its back against the wall. At all it's borders by all the capitalist ruled countries actively plotting its downfall and from many enemies within wanting and attempting to bring down socialism, it was an extreme time full of hope but real threats where mistakes were made at times and innocent people were killed. 

It's no secret from 1920 onwards that institutions from the print media to Hollywood, Radio, TV, academia,art etc were all (and are still) thoroughly infiltrated by national intelligence agencies especially during the cold War. Their specific remit was to make up lies about the USSR and socialism to stop workers from getting any ideas about wanting it in our countries and then spread these lies continuously through these mediums.Are you denying that? And if not then why do you come over all defensive about those lies? 

Up to 200,000 socialist prisoners were murdered by fascists after the Spanish civil War in Spain.1/2 million socialists were massacred in a CIA planned mass murder in Indonesia in 1965 by Islamists, 30,000 socialists murdered in US instigated op Condor in Latin America in 1960s alone. The US instigated scores of coups, assassinations and mass murders of worker and socialist movements throughout Africa, Asia and the rest of the world from 1945 to this day and that was in peace situations I haven't even started on their wars so don't give me oh we all hated McCarthism but socialists didn't get shot or sent to a prison when in fact they did and do throughout the world on our orders by the people we voted in. 

In reply to Pefa:

Are you really suggesting that Russia was ever anything but a state-capitalist dictatorship? 

In reply to Pefa:

The original OP was about human cooperation, this seems to work when all the participants are of the same mind and particularly when they have stark choices about survival. The soviet model of forced cooperation ie collectivisation of agriculture was a failure and with the added burden of Lysenko's 'science' led to great famines in Russia.

https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/12/trofim-lysenko-soviet-u...

A lesson to be learned about fitting science into political ideology. Also it indicates how the two big isms (socialism and Darwinism) of the 19th century sit very uneasily together. The more virulent versions of Marxism of Lenin and Stalin was definitely not enamoured with Darwinism (they had something in common with the godbotherers in the USA)

You seem to have a love for all socialists which is quite commendable. However you come across as a Lenlnist /Stalinist ,groups that did not particularly love 'other' socialists and usually eliminated them by execution or they disappeared in the Gulags, As for foreigners the ones that bought the 'Soviet Dream' and moved to Russia they all disappeared. My Grandfather toyed with this idea but thankfully he was dissuaded. The Soviet Dream soon crumbled for most and only survived by the vigorous use of secret police and a great propaganda network and stirring up nationalism. Some of its science was exemplary but the communist system eventually rotted from within.

However your defence as ever starts with accusations of fascist/ capitilist lies. You sound like  an echo of 1950's Soviet Propaganda. Sometimes in this life you have just take the failures on the nose and move on. Perhaps somebody might be saying that about the Capitalist system one day. Capitalism and Socialism are just human constructs for our convenience. To kill or imprison people because they wont accept your ideology is to me an indication of failure.

In reply to Pefa:

I think you are confusing scientists with fascists!

In reply to Removed Userjess13:

Also stateable as:

Voluntary, opt-in cooperation = good (also natural)

Forced cooperation = bad.

In reply to Pefa:

At last, you've put into a single sentence why communism/socialism have never actually worked, and why tyrants have taken over these countries at the expense of the proletariat.

In reply to fred99:

That sentence is the lie spread by capitalists that human nature is to be greedy, selfish and want power. Stalin attempted to leave the CC 4 times and his resignation was not accepted. He was voted into power. 

Capitalism is not only war, exploitation and imperialism against the people/proletariat but it is destroying the planet and its species. 

In reply to Removed Userjess13:

Lysenko did a lot of good work but this one theory was obviously wrong although it didn't lead to any famines, that is more lies from capitalism. 

Tell me how many famines Russia had after collectivisation considering the Russian empire endured repeated cycles of famine continously prior to collectivisation? Tell me how did the USSR win WW2 without mechanisation of the land and collectivisation? 

Religious people are not confined to the USA and Darwinism certainly doesn't have all the answers to life or do you think it does? 

Thanks, but I am a Marxist-Leninist, you would say a Stalinist or Tankie but that is wrong. 

Power struggles were rife with the Trots/Mensheviks and Tsarists(usually military officers) and Kulaks(very wealthy landowners that could read and ruled over the vast peasant countryside population that could not read) all trying to bring down the Bolsheviks (Marxist-Leninists). 

The Trotskyists were sabotaging machinery, plotting murderous coups and killing innocent people, the Tsarists assassinated Kirov and planned a coup, the Kulaks who fought with the anti-semitic White armies and burned crops and attacked thousands of sovkhozes and kolkhozes (which did lead to famine deaths) and all of them combined wanted the German fascists to win in Russia. So to say Marxist-Leninists were the murderous ones is clearly untrue as all the others planned the murder of Bolsheviks first. 

Come on Jess I think you are a decent guy but what you just wrote there is clearly untrue I'm afraid. Thousands of foreign workers, contractors and teachers came to the USSR settled down and lived happily and thousands came on temporary contracts paid to install machinery and teach new methods did their work and went back home to unemployment ridden USA. When did the Soviet dream crumble? When they won WW2? When they put the first man in space? Built the first space station? Were at the heart of the national liberation struggles throughout the 50s,60s and 70s to free people from colonial fascism? When they had a steady but always increasing gdp until Gorbachev the traitor decided to destroy socialism? When did it 'crumble'? 

So if a capitalist country wants to start a war with you because you are socialist then you just bow down and let them (or their 5th column iin your country) without putting up a fight?

Yes my family who lived in a socialist country and know how good it was often tell me they didn't believe the commies when they told them that in the capitalist countries you actually had people living in the streets because they didn't have a home and that this was acceptable. 

They didn't believe the commies/'1950's Soviet Propaganda' until 1989 when they saw it for themselves in capitalist countries and when capitalism came over there and people were thrown out of their homes to freeze to death under bridges and in doorways. 

In reply to DoctorYoghourt:

That ended when the NEP did.