Not true. Human nature is inherent. Conversely circumstances are created because of our very own nature.
I agree that human nature implies that, but I am rejecting it because of the implausibility of it. We have instincts, but these are limited to physical situations whereby we put our hand out when we fall, draw our hand away from something hot etc. Even these are not absolute and can be overcome. There is no decision that is hardwired in the same way.
Even if we had a definite human nature I am challenging our ability to establish what it is. Perhaps our nature will remain the same in different societies, but how it is realised WILL differ. See my bread example. Scarcity makes us act one way, surplus another.
Coming back to communism, it is not necessarily a bad form of government. Infact communism exists even in democracies today (which most of us consider the best). Like you said its image has been tarnished by the west.
Communism is not a form of government as such, unless you are using the term in a very novel way
Communism does not exist in any existing state. I am talking about philosophical communism as stated. A classless, stateless society...
The major downside to communism, is its very nature to oppose human nature. We might preach equality at all levels, but most of us practice inequality at some level or the other.
Actually we practice both, depending on circumstance and other factors. Because we practice both I would not say that either is inherently definitive of who we are. There is as much problem saying we are inherently bad, as there is saying we are inherently good. The trick is to create a society in which the outcome remains the same whatever people feel.
There is this inherent need in every person, to be "better than the rest", or be "successful" (since success is something that is relative). This very nature creates competition (and inequality) and it is competition that drives innovation. The more the competition, more rapid the growth which finally results in a Capitalist state where incentives are for people that perform.
I agree with the first bit to some extent, the second bit rather a lot, but I completely disagree with the third bit. No communist (in a genuine sense) denies the role that success and motivation have to play. This is not purely financial though, even now. It just happens to be for some.
For example people are motivated to cure disease, to educate the youth, to change laws, to stop wars....and these fields reward success with status more than material wealth for the most part. Yes you may accrue material wealth at the upper echelons, but this is not always the case. If getting 'stuff' was our only drive, we would not give to charity, and we would all try and run ftse 100 companies. We don't. The existence of these other motivations are not only compatible with communism, but are fundamental.
I am not sure if you said Communism would work only in developed countries, but communism is a principle that works in poor countries.
I did, as did Karl Marx, and the vast majority of communist writers both past and present. Whether or not you subscribe to dialectical materialism, capitalism is vital! That is right, it is a communist term, and is seen as a necessary stage in human evolution. Without it you will not have a surplus of goods which is vital for overcoming the problem of greed in situations of scarcity. You need an affluent economy before you can let everyone help themselves. You need more than the bare minimum so that you can deal with people taking more than their share. When you have this they won't take that much more because good have only a use value, and are only desirable as such. My bread example again.
Communism cannot come from a poor country for the reasons stated above. The 'socialist' methods of state control and protectionist methods can help rapid industrialisation though. This comes at a price, but so does living in pre industrial society.
Because everyone that is poor wants to not be equal to each other, but be equal to the rich guy (Remember occupy wall street?
). From that perspective communism as a principle is flawed. Communism in a rich country wont work, since most rich people have gotten there because of their hard work when they proved they were better than most other guys that competed with them.
Most people have gotten rich because of their own hard work? One hand washes the other, and with limited room at the top it is going to be who you know at least as much as what you can do. If finances were distributed meritocratically then I would have less objection to the system, but this is not the case.
You have the problem of inheritance. Who has worked harder, a business man who turns over 200k having started from scratch, or a business man who turns over 200 million having had a 500million pound start up and a large infrastructure put in place by their parents? It is hard to quantify, but whilst they may well both be hard working, they live very different lives. Perhaps the small businessman would have turned over 600million, perhaps he would have lost it all. Perhaps the rich person would have made it from nothing, perhaps they wouldn't. The point is that money follows after money. What percentage of the richest 1000 people on earth started with no inheritance, no significant help from their family? How many were state educated children on free school meals? You do the math
People also get rich because they work hard in certain professions. Do doctors not work as hard, or teachers? Whilst doctors are seldom poor, they will not be as rich as businessmen, regardless of how hard they work. Teachers may devote every ounce of their being to their craft, but will never become as wealthy as even some people in middle management.
A hardworking refuse collector and a hardworking business man in the financial sector earn vastly different amounts. I know which one I would miss more though if they both stopped doing their job.
Another common downside to communism is the fact that it gives rise to red tape and bureaucracy. For example trade unions. If you see places where unions exist, nothing will ever get done because everything is a collective effort. People dont get individual incentives, so why would they be motivated to do anything at all?
Trade unions? That is something that exists with capitalist states. Something that might exist approaching socialism. Not communism, at least not in most popular conceptions. I carefully restricted the debate at the beginning because the topic is huge, not because I don't like all aspects of it.