All but yours and mine, eh? Ideologically inspired holocausts certainly function to partially transform the nature of those who live from the change. A sufficiently enthused Marxist might insist the dead have had their nature changed as well.
Quote by: Dan74
"All history is nothing but a continuous transformation of human nature." ~ Marx. The Poverty of Philosophy
So an erased blackboard provides one side of an equation with food and sex while on the other side could be either Marxism, National Socialism, Social Democracy, Rational Anarchy, Libertarian Paternalism, etc.? I'm not clear why you'd pick Marxism of the choices but AM interested in why you'd force it on me. For my own good?
The only things within human nature that are actually integrated into us are eating and reproduction - the key elements of "survival of the fittest". As far as I know, capitalism isn't the only system that allows for food and sex.
Unlike National Socialism, Marxism doesn't look to race, isn't impressed with a notion of genetic inheritance, and has no use for and is even hostile to the idea of human nature rooted in biology as having enduring attributes. There is no place in Marxism for individuality, it being concerned with only groups, their environments in history, and the constant changes these cause in the groups as the groups change their environments, and so themselves. The individual's mind has no innate structure. There marks the fated failure of Marxism for it's wrong assessment of human nature, putting most significance on its not being genetically formed and innate thus closing even the possibility of respect for the individual, as Marxism doesn't postulate much less look for and find individual rights.
"The mode of production of material life conditions the social, political, and intellectual life processes in general. It is not the consciousness of men that determines their being, but, on the contrary, their social being that determines their consciousness." ~ Marx. Contribution to the critique of political economy
The Pilgrims put communism into practice did they not? What did they do wrong that it failed. As a Marxist you can't find where they went wrong? When the colony modified its rules which saved it, were the rules THEN more in line with Marxist thought and THAT is what not only saved the colony but led it to thrive?
Pilgrims are an absurd thing to discuss when criticizing Marxism, as Marx wasn't even born until centuries after the pilgrims.
I think you're having trouble finding successful examples of Marxism in practice. Singapore is a big success, eh? Is that joint the Marxist Shangri La?
So was the Pilgrim commune doomed to failure because it was the people's movement to communism and not Marx's vision of communism? Is that what happened with the Pilgrims?
Communism isn't something "forced upon" the people, since it is a people's movement.
The bourgeoisie, eh? That's any that doesn't agree with you isn't it? By what standard is a man judged to determine whether he/she is a member of the bourgeoisie? I'd bet socialism won't only be forced on the bourgeoisie but also onto any prole who embraces the revolution with insufficient enthusiasm. You know the type, ordered to shoot a member of the bourgeoisie, and rightly so they need shot, but that prole won't do it, so he is lined up with the bourgeoisie to be shot himself by another prole whose nature has been transformed in an instant.
Socialism is established through a proletarian revolution. Yes, it will be forced upon the bourgeoisie of the capitalist age, and rightly so.
The Pilgrims then; did you see any there who might have been bourgeoisie or insufficiently motivated proles that screwed up the communes principals to the detriment of the whole commune?