Ahh, spoken like a true believer. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Marx, The Poverty of Philosophy
Let me ask you something, You can share your wife? If not, why not? Is there any difference between your child and another child?
Excellent points, Emil ! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! If these foolishly idealistic dummies would just step back an inch from their blind faith in such stupidity, they could easily see that every individual is truly an INDIVIDUAL and each of them have their own personal preferences, selfish desires and agendas that drive them. But they won't do that because then their house of cards would collapse around their ears. True communism would indeed be nice - but it can never be put into practice as along as human beings are involved.
This was how the Communist circle I knew operated...one guy was In Charge, and that was that...although quite frankly, activist groups tend to get run by those who show up most often. For the Anarchists...well, I was one of the few with car and without heroin addiction...sigh. I think Anarchy might work if we were widely spread, sparse settlements again, and in those sparse settlements, everyone could make decisions collectively, with a sense of who each person is involved in the decision. But I think our current world population makes such a society untenable. And even in such a society, there'd be wars-I point to tribal Papua New Guinea as a demonstration in point. I think what's really necessary is a fundamental increase in compassion for each other, and if we had that, the political situation would start getting sorted. But well, we don't. In fact, we seem to becoming more isolated and selfish...no data to back that, though, I'm afraid it's just an impression that people seem less concerned about others.
I'll buy that. As to your last point, I believe there IS data to support it - you don't have to look any farther than crime statistics and the number of lawsuits filed each year.
I make change happen. By Example first off. Mind sets are changing. It is Evolution in process . Some one will read your post and change. IT is inevitable . New knowledge changes people and how they think. Last of all Nature will take care of it one way or the other even if it means wiping most of us off and life grows anew. My brother and I hold to the believe insects will rule in the future . Insects will take over the world oh my Beetles, worms and flies oh my beetles, worms and fies oh my
Dude, the number one health problem among the poor in the capitalist US is OBESITY!!!!!!! Communism is an idea incompatible with human nature and inevitably results in human suffering on a massive scale every time it is imposed on an entire nation. We figured out it didn't work hundreds of years ago in America. Whe the Pilgrims first arrived they lived under the Mayflower Compact, basically they lived as a commune: The first winter was disasterous – nearly half of the Pilgrims died of starvation, pneumonia and tuberculosis. Many claim that Bradford’s first wife perished that first winter, but that is not quite true – she actually fell off the Mayflower quite close to land and drowned, never making it to Plymouth (he later remarried.) During the first two years the colony lived under what could only be called Communism, enshrined in the Mayflower Compact. Each person was accorded a “share” of the totality of what was produced at the colony, and each person was expected to do their part in working toward the common good. The land, and that upon it, was owned by the colony as a collective. It not only did not work out, it nearly killed them all. William Bradford wrote in his diary “For in this instance, community of property (so far as it went) was found to breed much confusion and discontent, and retard much employment which would have been to the general benefit and comfort. For the young men who were most able and fit for service objected to being forced to spend their time and strength in working for other men’s wives and children, without any recompense. The strong man or the resourceful man had no more share of food, clothes, etc., than the weak man who was not able to do a quarter the other could. This was thought injustice.” After the second winter, realizing that the colony had survived only through the friendship and largesse of the native Americans, and would soon perish if changes were not made, Bradford tore up the Mayflower Compact. He instead assigned each family a plot of land to be their property, to be worked as the family saw fit, and with the fruits of that land to be their own. It was the beginning of private property rights in the New World. The result? Again, from his diary: “It made all hands very industrious, so that much more corn was planted than otherwise would have been by any means the Governor or any other could devise, and saved him a great deal of trouble, and gave far better satisfaction.” From the very day that Bradford tore up the Mayflower Compact, Plymouth began to prosper. Within a year the colonists found themselves with more food than they could eat. Flush with a bountiful harvest far in excess of their need for food and having bartered for all the goods they needed to get through the winter, they had a feast of thanks with their Indian trading partners. Within a couple of years the colonists paid off their debt to the London Merchants and became, in fact, free men. http://foreclosureblues.wordpress.com/2010/11/25/the-truth-about-thanksgiving-by-karl-denninger/
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! (see #41) Were I a superstitious sort, I'd deem Marx a prophet; rather, I think he was simply an exceptionally shrewd and insightful analyst. Whatever reservations Badiou and Zizek may have, there's always a place for critique of essentialist tendencies.
you are getting off point. that doesn't mean a form of communism could never work in the future. coupled with technology, it very well could. communism doesn't necessarily mean that there is no respect for the individual or individual desires. even in a capitalist system, not all individual desires can come to fruition either. communism within economics would be a system where monetary gain is less an issue but individual aspirations would take precedence such as pursuing one's passions or interests. the issue with communism right now is that it won't work when people have no incentive to work to feed and take care of themselves. even if there were enough resources, this doesn't mean that communism has no repercussions for laziness. that can be implemented. after all, militaries are forms of communism to some degree though a crude one. everyone is ascertained to their interests and abilities and allowed to choose their profession and even to change their profession.
What a piece of garbage! Is that the best you can do? A military is about as far from a communistic non-governmental entity as one can get. It's based ENTIRELY upon a hierarchy of rank and near-blind obedience to orders. It's also one of the few places where you'll find excellent cooks working in a motor pool fixing vehicles. As I've said before, you have absolutely NO concept of basic human nature. Despite the fact that technology has increased by leaps and bounds in the last 100 years, people - and their basic nature - have NOT changed in thousands of years. Nor will it change in another 100 thousand years. Your faith in technology is like that of a small child.
Unrealistic aspirations are unrealistic. At some point life has to be accepted for what it is, not for what we (you) want it to be. To a 10 year old, anything is possible but talk to that smae person 60 years later. This is fine when discussing on a forum but bad people use this (what they perceive as weakness, and rightly so) to their advantage. Just look at history, history tells the tale. Hell for that matter the biggest supporters (BS throwers) of socialism show no signs (at all) of being socialist in their own personal lives. Doesnt this give you a clue?
you are so narrow-minded. did i say that militaries are completely communistic? no. you see no possiblities except for what is in front of you. i said that it has aspects of communism which is needs are provided for as they work in their respective vocations. it's not a capitalistic model which is the point. this is about an 'economic' model, not the fact militaries are heirarchal. also, what makes you think that communism can't incorporate some form of heirarchy? or even promote innovation, individualism or creativity? that's again your inflexible thinking. did i say communism should be just like the military? no. it was just a partial example but there are some aspects that could be further developed and refined. so, you base humanity on a hundred thousand year intervals. what utter bullshit. i do have a concept of basic human nature and you can go on believing that human nature will never change at all but i'm not going to make such a rediculous claim. also, i don't think human nature has to change completely in order for a different form of government or economic model to work, YOU do. did i say it would be perfect? no. like i said before, there were probably people in the past who would have scoffed at the very idea of a society that eradicated slavery or promoted women's rights and accomplished it to a real extent. i see your scoff the same way. you have the present in your favor to scoff but you can't predict the very distant future. what's strange is how you are so actively against the idea. that's the right thinking to make changes. again, you have the present to confirm your stand but that doesn't mean it's impossible just because you believe it is.
Yes, because of our COMMUNIST food subsidy program making starches and sugars cheaper than healthy food! (See, communism makes you fat. Pass the oreos please, comrade.)
If it does not, that will be our choice. We can consciously alter and improve our nature now, can't we? To choose not to use a tool you have does not remove the existence of the tool.
what? that has nothing to do with communism. that would be more capitalism. it's cheaper to produce and make a profit.
Nope - you STILL have no idea what you're talking about. Your version is nothing more than a silly, childish pipe-dream with nothing at all to support it. But what I'm saying has ALL the history of humankind to support it. You sound like a little kid who actually believes in the Star Trek fantasy where everything is provided for you and no one really has to work if they choose not to. Well, the fantasy is just that - a fantasy. And by the way, have you noticed that the nutty guy who started this thread has tucked tail and run away? You are pretty much the only one here who is still clinging to this stupidity AND you cannot even show a single example of where it has ever worked - not once.
it's sad that you are so pessimistic. you also think it has to depend on money as a repercussion. eventually people are going to cooperate to make a living. i don't think that capitalism is the best model and i don't think communism necessarily has to be without incentives for advancement or innovation. i think even capitalism can inhibit that when the issue is soley focused on profit rather than what is best. i'm not advocating a particular anything but that communism could potentially have some good and useful merits if implemented in the right combination, not that it would be feasible right now. as for star trek, they had to earn to be there by going to academy. if they didn't work, they would get in trouble or be thrown out. please..
I have several comments to make in reference to all the posts so far. 1) Anarcho and others [B]Looking Backwards by Edward Bellamy a book that shows what communistic society could look like and how it could come about. Worth a read! 2) Human Nature can change with the right kind of education and a very stuctured altruistic organization implementing the necessary changes. (we can discuss these:} 3)Some will some wont who cares who's next! 4) I have personally worked with Bolsheviks and I can tell you our Army is run in a very similar way! The amount of briefings, paperwork ,busywork etc....pulease!
Hell for that matter the biggest supporters (BS throwers) of socialism show no signs (at all) of being socialist in their own personal lives. Doesnt this give you a clue? Last edited by John99; Today at 07:08 PM.. It is extremely ironic isnt it John ! On the other hand those that rail against socialism the most like our some of our senators and congresspeople who have all their needs met and then some, benefit most. They are on the dole in every way. And bless their little hearts when they are through with their stint as public servants ( and I use that term loosely) they will go on to work for some corporation which they helped in somewy or the other at the workers expensePlease Register or Log in to view the hidden image!. Ahhh the best of both worlds!
quinnsong, You agree that those who gave the shooting order against those who took part in demonstrations in Tiananmen Square are criminals and should be judged as such?
