I did mean it in the evolutionary sense. We're talking about our nature here. Humans evolved to collectively coordinate complex novel tasks, and this extremely well. For this we have to be able to assume that others are generally well-intentioned.
You're right that it's ultimately selfish behavior. It's a necessary heuristic in the state of nature. Social life is complicated enough as it is. If you go around cheating people things won't end well for you.
We also had sex with them.
At least our ancestors definitely weren't Zig Forumscels then.
"It's good in theory but it just doesn't work"
I did read your ridiculous comment. It's still incredibly idiotic.
ML isn't the be-all-end-all of communism you dumb asshole. If you weren't completely pig ignorant of Communism and labor history or just in general you'd know that the various currents of socialism experienced popularity even within apparently wealthy societies.
I'm not a ML you drooling nimrod.
If you weren't completely ignorant you'd know that isn't true. Alexander the Great conquered the world with an army a fraction of the size of what the Persian Empire was able to field. Genghis Khan conquered the most advanced societies in the world with illiterate nomads whose most sophisticated technology was alcoholic goat milk and the recurve bows. The Germans hacked apart the Roman Empire without the benefit of Rome's advanced technology. Abyssinia sent the Italian's packing without the benefit of their industrial advancements or their modern weapons. Berbers with rifles were able to defeat the Ottoman's without the aid of railways or industry or all their "biggest guns."
You don't know what you're talking about.
A fun way to deal with these people is to reduce the argument to absurdity. Liberals usually get flustered when you point out that they are essentially saying modern society in general is contrary to human nature and that it would function better if we reverted to slave society.
Here, have a snickers
christianity is stupid
give up
Muh human nature arguments, but a lot of that is just the culture telling people what to think. The human nature argument is literally just a rehash of the argument for divine right, so it's not really a liberal one, but mainstream liberalism at this point is a strawman to be knocked down by conservative monarchism/fascism. There may be some liberals with guts to actually stand for something, but they definitely aren't a part of mainstream politics which has gone full rightist.
Usually though the objection I hear to communism is that it's just a scheme to install a one-party state, which tbf is a valid criticism if you think about how revolutions actually work. Revolutions are not waged by the starving masses alone; the track record of such rebellions is not very strong throughout human history, and capitalist society has only made it easier to suppress such rebellions. Who is to say that what comes after capitalism won't be a system that is even worse, and manages to overcome capitalism's contradictions? In a lot of ways I'd even argue that we're in the middle of a transition between capitalism and… something different, but certainly not anything socialist.
Lol you think nations are the driver of history? Capitalism is a global system. It wouldn't be possible without comprador elites in those third world countries, and the rulers of the first world don't give a shit about whatever "national interests" they purportedly represent, which is why they're okay with America going down the shitter - it actually helps the rulers out, since they can go into their gated communities and private schools and leave the plebs to their own devices.
No u