Discussion in 'Political Science' started by sxane, Sep 3, 2016.
Absolutely not true in the 21stC west (my bold).
Yes especially in the 21stC west.
It is by design and practice involuntary and that does not change with a turn of the calander or a new date.
The only COMMUNISM we have in the west this century is in COMMUNES. Communes are voluntary.
I think you should perhaps look into the ways of the Amish. They have a lot of very efficient ideas. Again, nothing is forced on them by government. I believe one of the things that leads to their successes is.....they have a strong moral anchor. Communism seems to always want to destroy that moral anchor in favor of "state worship:.
Okay Crank. I hadn't thought of just a simple commune. I can see that it is a voluntary cooperative. So I guess to some extent it is possible. Then I got to tinkering with it. What if you had a commune of a great scale, say 100,000 people. I'd assume everyone would share basic responsibilities such as food, shelter, and energy production. There would also have to be some kind of military or defense system. I guess my question, if it is possible to create such a large commune, would people still have the freedom outside of their group responsibilities to pursue their natural talents and abilities. Could you have scientists, artists, athletes, ect. Can people take care of business, and still have time to live in a Star Trek utopia? I suppose it isn't impossible to have communal living if people are still free to pursue personal goals. The problem is personal goal is definately not a commune type of concept.
Well, no. Communism doesn't make any comment on ideology, it's merely a system of managing practicalities. Communists (those living communally) can be atheists, religious, or otherwise, and still run according to an ideology which assists in cohesion.
The Amish are simply an older version of the more recent groups like the Twelve Tribes (who are Messianic Jews, more or less).
Communism only works at the village level. Anything larger is going to problematic, obviously.
Even then (village communism), the only ones with any sort of longevity are those which run according to an ideology (purpose), engage in trade with the 'outside', and are entirely voluntary. Amish, Twelve Tribes, etc. So basically, any commune which runs like a primary society village. There is heavy obligation to the village as a whole, there is a healthy barter system within the village (and sometimes outside), and there is a reduction in the pursuit of individual desires - at least the level of pursuit which compromises village cohesion/stability.
Best reading I've ever done on this system is from that stalwart of 20thC 'socialist' economics, Scott Nearing. The man was a flipping genius when it comes to smallholding. And yes, he was a paid up member of the Commies for a while there. It lost him a Professorship or two, actually.
Venezuela isn't a communist economy/society. In fact, you can't know how "communism always ends up" because there has never been a communist economy/society. It's all just a theory.
Let's explore that idea....
Then Abraham Lincoln was describing socialism iin the Gettysburg Address? All the talk of ours being a "democracy" is false and very undesirable anyway? "Of the people, by the people, and for the people" means answerable to the people and that is bad? Is dictatorship better?
When communism is spoken of, it is a reference to Marx's work. It is a Marxian idea. "Communism" is not often used to mean the theories of some little-known non-Marxist and a theory that diverges from that of Marx. Rather, it is a direct, specific reference to Marx and his work. He is the most recognized source of any thought of communism or definition and description of communism. So, what, exactly, is Marx's definition/description of "communism". According to Marx, what is "communism" and how does it happen? If you don't know, then you must actually be the one here who is clueless. I'll wait for your answer.
Moreso in the case of socialism, actually.
I'll thank you to discuss the facts of the subject and stop ascribing imagined emotions and thoughts to me.
You really don't know how that happened, do you? Try explaining the connection or progression from the Russian history of seizure of state power to the emergence of state capitalism due to the influence of the 2 main driving forces and resulting in the failure to establish socialism. Show you have a clue.
Please explain the decades-long influence of U.S. interference in the politics and economics of Venezuela and what that influence produced there. Discuss US A.I.D. and also The National Endowment for Democracy and the damage done to the country by them both. How much did Obama allocate to fund the Venezuelan opposition and interfere? Then explain why the U.S. puppet, Carmona, was busy dissolving the parliament and the courts leaving him free to rule by decree, while Chavez was in jail briefly.
The U.S. government knew all about the 2002 coup that was to occur against Chavez two days before it happened. In CIA documents obtained by the FOIA, it shows that the CIA identified Chavez and 10 others to be arrested in the 2002 coup. Isn't that peculiar?
But you didn't know anything about this because it is actually you who is the clueless one here.
Who says you would be cared for? Here. Try to finish this statement in reference to socialism: "from each according to his ability, to each according to his ____." Can you do it?
How do you know?
We wouldn't know because Marxist communism has never existed anywhere at any time, ever. All you need do is to correctly define communism according to Marx's description and you will see.
Quite wrong as communism is not a perfect state of being nor is it a perfect stateless society.
you always lose that argument
Why, didn't I already state that you weren't qualified? Sure did.
Lincoln was an authoritarian dictator that had a real problem with truth. The Gettysburg Address was a total travesty based on Lincoln being totally responsible for all those dead and pretending it was for some noble cause. And if you think his use of "Of the people, by the people and for the people..." has anything to do with the people, you are delusional.
But where in that address does it mention either democracy or socialism? This is only your desire to have something mean what you want it to mean.
Marx, a diseased individual that would be nothing without the diseased minds of Plato, Engels, Kant, Hegel and so many others. So why would I really care what Marx thought? His is but a utopia that never has been and never will be.
Communism or Fascism, they are but one and the same, collectivism. Show where either has ever succeeded. Oh, I have no doubt you can quote all the facts of Marx or Lenin or Stalin or Hitler, but you are still clueless on their meaning and their effects.
You somehow think these are all different forms of government, well you are clueless. There are no forms, just stages. But this thread is on morality, specifically communism. I know you are clueless on the immorality so can you explain why it would be moral?
Ok, so you have thoroughly, convincingly, honestly proven you have no actual knowledge of all this and are the one who is truly clueless. Welcome to the right wing fringe.
[QUOTE="Kode, post: 1067864722, member: 70481
he does have knowledge of it actually and is far more accurate than any of your claims have been.
Whenever faced with an argument which you lack the mental capacity to refute you resort to such non arguments as " you do not know anything about it"
The fact which you are in desperate denial of is that YOU ARE NOT better informed or educated than others. You are not more aware of the subject of socialism /communism than others and they are in fact debunking and crushing your shallow and ill informed ideas.
If you knew Marx's definition/description of communism you would have answered and given it. But you didn't because you don't know. Yet you prance around here asserting your "superior knowledge" of Marx and call me clueless. Yet you show you know nothing about it and you are therefore incapable of discussing it intelligently. Your posturing is all puff and fluffery. ... a sham. This is why I stopped discussing anything with you.
NEED! Of course.....that's all I am saying. If I choose not to work I will have unmet needs. If you have the ability.... you can pay for them. Does that sound like a good deal to you? I finished the Marxist statement, so now you tell me how well it works.
Does it matter? Does absolute rigid moral-based policies work in the real world? How do we know one moral is right and a conflicting one is wrong?
Separate names with a comma.