journaldan

Primuspilas says: Consider that most people, at least within the Roman Empire, lived within a city, town or other more centralized environment. I doubt that "most" people lived in the city. Was agriculture really that advanced that most people were able to live and be supported by the agricultural efforts of others? Even until well into the 20th century, most people in the USA lived in "rural" settings rather than "urban" (or "suburban")

Great points dnews. I don't have the educated background to say definitively one way or the other (though others on this forum do and soon will) but I would agree with the hypothesis you have put forward unless proven otherwise. I am sure that the "middle class" in and around Rome and a few other major cities was relatively small, perhaps best compared in size and scope to what I know of the middle class structure in the late 1700s and early 1800s in the USA when most people were just trying to get by, slavery was common and the rich were elevated well beyond the "common man." I am anxious for the experts on the board to chime in.

Color? Are you implying that red-neck is a Red Communist?

My 11 year old son was very dis-satisfied with the King Arthur movie. We saw the movie together and shared a bucket of popcorn larger than his head. Apparently, he read a book in his 5th grade class on Arthur and now accepts only that view. My son is pretty bright and it was an adult book, so it did have lots of supporting facts and evidence, but as we know, there is no one definitive story. I am working on him to open his eyes a bit, or at least to make him have to think to make arguments to support his position. I certainly can't say that I am right on Arthur and he is wrong, because in this case, the son may actually know more than the father. This little episode, however, has been a bit of an eye-opener for me. It is indicative of how we can get caught in our own beliefs and not be open to other theories, points of view. (I still say early man lived in a style that could be defined as communism for many centuries, however)

Saw the new movie "King Arthur" over the weekend. It kept me entertained for more than two hours, which usually I get a little fidgety for a movie that long. It was a whole different take on the Arthur legend from what has normally been presented in other films I have seen. I don't want to spoil the plot line for anyone, but there is a strong Roman tie-in throughout.

I guess I would go along with your comments re: Vulcan. Plus they have those really cool mind melds. I wonder what the psychology was being the creation of a god that was lame?

I think Primuspilas was fairly on the mark. In such societies, there was a matriach/patriach or group of such that made decisions on major things (time to move to new hunting grounds or whatever). For the most part however, I think one could say the living was communal, with all hands lending themselves to the necessary tasks. If one didn't contribute, the entire clan/group/community could be at risk.

I am gonna say Athens.

Speaking of democracy, et al.... Canada is having national elections today. The Liberals and Conservatives are so evenly split, each with about 35 percent of the vote in pre-election polling, it appears that the Bloc Quebecois (sp?) may turn out to be in a position of significant authority. The BQ only runs candidates in Quebec and actively seeks the removal of Quebec from the dominion. In a case of high irony, the party that seeks the end of federal involvement in its home territory likely will have to be courted by one of the "mainstream" parties in order to be able to form a federal government. There is a far-left wing party in the mix as well, the NDLP. All in all, things could get interesting in Ottawa. (For those who forgot their international-government-styles-decoder ring at home, Canada has a parliamentary system of gov't.)

What form of government would you say the hunter-gatherers of centuries past operated. Was this not a form of communism that served them well for centuries, before they got steamrolled by "progress?"

I got to tell you, I am exhausted just reading all these questions. And I don't even have to answer them. Great job with the answers so far...

Question - isn't our current Western democracy a form of collectivism? I'd say the answer is no, but I would be open to hear your argument as to how it could be viewed as such. Primuspilas says Communism is/was a failure. The government structure labeled Communism by the Soviets and others was a failure, but was not true textbook definition Communism. True communism existed for thousands of years and worked. But again, I am not a communist

No problemo

Well, if the communal living is based on conditions you get to impose, obviously, you are going to do better. The original question was does anyone believe in communism. True communism would have no such conditions. It is true that community cannot be enforced, I maintain the argument that at one time, it was the norm and no longer is. Even 5,000 years ago, I am sure there was the occassional person who declined to participate in the community. The outlook for that person was probably fairly grim.

If you were in true community with 6 people, what would happen if you one day needed an electrician? A 7th person. A doctor? An 8th person. A seamstress? A 9th person. The list goes on. You say would you rather share your property with 6 people than 200 million. If you get to pick the six people, you might be ok. But what if I got to pick the 6 people for you? Would you rather take your chances with my stacked deck of six people or a more randomized grouping of 200 million? We live in communities, but we are not communal people. I raise my kids. You raise yours. I work every day and keep not only what I need, but the extra I end up with at the end of the day. You do the same. Prior to the rise of the city system, the community worked together to raise children and the the community all worked and contributed to the common good. They feasted together and they starved together. Today, I might feast while my neighbor starves. I am not saying which system is better. I am saying that human kind as a whole once had one system and now has another.

There ya go... http://www.ctlibrary.com/1878

Demson: You lost me. You say: 1) Communism as a political system is afront to human nature. 2) Communism as a conditional agreement between people would rawk. If communism would be good between two people, why would it not be good between 200 million? The system either works or it does not. The numbers involved should not make a difference, beyond bringing the best or worst elements of the system into sharper focus. Secondly, you say "Human existence is based on individualism, we're a very a-social race." Prior to roughly 1500 on the common era, human existence was basically based on community living. The community worked together to improve the community. The rise of cities over the last 1,000 years or so, has created the individualism of what you speak. (There were cities and individualism prior to 1500, but I am saying that the move toward individualism accelerated around 1500. We can argue about the exact date of that acceleration. I select 1500, or 1492 really, based on the "discovery" of a certain lost mariner. Another good argument could be made for the late 1700s and the events of revolutions in America and France.) If humans have existed for at least 1 million years, which is safely inside the range accepted by most science, then for 99.95 percent of human history, we were community-orientated, or "communal" rather than individually orientated. Edit: the above statements assume that "rawk" is a good thing. I am a white guy from the suburbs who wears a hat and drives slow on the highway. I am normally several years behind on the lingo.

A report I read said the church likely was destroyed in an earthquake in 363.

But no, I am not a Communist

Viggen hits the nail on the head. There never has been a true Communist state in the world. USSR, China, N. Korea, Cuba, none really have/had a true sharing of all things by all people with contributions by all, each according to his gifts. It may sound subversive in the U.S., but such a system would greatly enhance the average standard of living of all people who participated. Those who would suffer would be the whites alrightly living in the suburbs. Instead of having 9 times more than the world average, they would only have all that they need.

What's wrong with Xena?

I think the question of "IF" Jesus lived has long been decided. Clearly there was a man named Jesus, referenced by the Bible, Josephus and others. One may question if he was the Son of God. I happen to think that he was. But that he existed has been pretty well established, I believe. The interesting thing, if there was no Jesus, why are billions of people still talking about him, 2,000 years later?

My list included the disclaimer: In no particular order. I agree Canada would be down toward the bottom of that list. Another way to look at that list: not a single nation from below the Equator.

Thanks for the input. While you have referenced some important events in Italy's recent actions on the world stage, I still say Italy would probably be a close also-ran if I were to make a list of the top nations in the world. How one defines "top" may have some influence on that list. In no paticular order, here's my list: USA (economic power, etc, UN security council veto) Canada (closely tied to the Americans, wealth of natural resources) Japan ( economic powerhouse) China (based on population as much as anything, emerging power, UN security council veto) Russia (former Super power still has world influence, UN security council veto) U.K. (Economic power, influence in former empire states, UN security council veto) Germany (biggest economy in Europe) Belgium (home to several international body headquarters, World Court, NATO, I think the European offices of the U.N.) Denmark (See Belgium) Egypt (Carries an important voice in the Muslim world. Has played a role linking the West to the Middle East) France (Center of culture, UN security council veto) India (A billion or so people, and a nuclear power. Growing economy) Saudi Arabia (See Egypt, plus oil reserves make it a power player.) I could easily accept the argument to knock Belgium or Denmark off the list. Interestingly, not a single South American country even comes close.

I may not have GDP numbers in front of me, but I would have to say that, trying to look at it objectively, Italy does not have the power/prominence/whatever that is possesed by France, U.K., Germany and several others. When it comes to influence on the world stage, Italy doesn't seem to be in the upper echelon. Take the Iraq conflict, as an example. While I have heard U.K., France, Germany, Denmark, even Spain, having influence on that situation, I can't recally any comments re: the Italians. I admit that my knowledge of world affairs comes through the filter of American media, but nonetheless these other countries have been inluential in policy making/actions in Iraq there and Italy has not -- at least according to what I have heard/seen reported. (I am fortunate enough to live in Michigan, near the northern border, where I am able to view the Canadian national news, where I get a different, though still Western, take on world events.) You also raise an interesting observation when you compare the boundaries of the former Holy Roman Empire to the line dividing the wealthier portion of Italy from the less wealthy.