Communism

[Zeke]

I am not a Communist or anything but I did alot of stunding on it.........

Is anyone a Communist here?

Does anyone beilive in that kind of Polotics?

sorry about spelling

Zeke

[Primus Pilus]

Can't speak for anyone else, but Communism is the farthest reach from my personal belief system.

[kama]

communism is in a little bit of every form of gov't but to be purely a commie, thats a no no. just really stupid to not have any personal gain.

[Viggen]

One has to differentiate between the theoratical approach and the practical outcome of communism, while in theory Marx and Engels theories had many interesting points (but was still flawed in my onpinon), the practical outcome (USSR) was a dictatorship that had little to do with the concept of the original system called communism...

 

regards

viggen

[Moonlapse]

Read Altas Shrugged by Ayn Rand for a little bit of counter-point...

[journaldan]

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.

[journaldan]

But no, I am not a Communist

[Moonlapse]

I'd better not start talking here....

[Demson]

OMG, MOON"S A COMMIE!

 

*ahem*

 

Communism as a political system is afront to human nature.

 

Communism as a conditional agreement between people would rawk.

 

It's very paradoxal, really. Human existence is based on individualism, we're a very a-social race. Growing up in a collective will change the identity of being a human. Which means trouble. You can't educate your instincts, you know.

 

But if we can choose for such an existense volunteerly and under certain conditions, it could work out very well.

 

I have a practical example in mind - I'll see if I can find some sources of information.

[journaldan]

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.

[Demson]

I love this.

 

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.

 

 

To me numbers make a difference. Tell me - are you more at ease with choosing to sacrifise your individuality for a team of 6 trusted friends, or having to share your property with 200 million strangers?

 

Conditional is the key word here. Being forced to life a collective life has a big chance of failure. This changes when you can choose for it.

 

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.

 

 

We still live in communities. We are communal beings. But when ***** hits the fan - our instincts will tell us to choose whatever is the most benificial to yourself. Human loyalty is conditional.

 

Now ants are true communal beings. They life and die for the sake of the community. Their loyalty is unconditional.

[journaldan]

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.

[Demson]

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.

 

 

What if I can be perfectly happy with those 6 people?

 

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?

 

 

The situation you describe would be the opposite of my conditional collectivism.

 

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.

 

 

Yes.

 

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.

 

 

And I am saying that conditional collectivism could be very benificial. What are we trying to argue again? Or has all the beer and years of ranting with Drusilla finally gotten to me?

 

[kama]

communism is especially bad when the lazy guy who does nothing gets everything you have and you work your ass off and get nothing else special.

[Moonlapse]

No, I'm not a communist. Community cannot be enforced, it takes willing participants. Although the system we have here in America has its flaws, I truly value the opportunity I have. I can use my motivation and skill to succeed. Those who are lazy or don't care usually don't. There are exceptions... the 'theifs' who lack honor and steal their success from those who have suceeded honorably.

 

I think that media has drastically changed the concept of community. It can destroy previously established communities and create new ones that are unheard of in human history. The statement that a system either works or doesn't work... I don;t think its that simple. Any system that works can be manipulated by the honorless and therefore fail. Humans will always be humans, and I do not believe that all men are equal (at least in their moral prinicples) Any system where the honest man with determination can push himself beyond the lazy ones will succeed, at least for a while.