All right. New rule. I’m going to answer every question. But, in an effort to keep this a fast paced battle of the wits. I’m going to answer the easy ones first. If you asked a question a while ago, and I haven’t gotten to it, it just means I’m doing research. So first Larry’s latest post, then on to Keenan, then on to Waterj2, then others.
**
I wasn’t being facetious about that elegantly. I do think everyone’s arguments are getting better.
I can’t remember the exact figures either. I do remember that the US grossly and knowingly inflated the Soviets numbers to justify military spending. Alexander Cockburn wrote a great book on it called “The Threat”. Does anyone want to jump in with some info from it? The only thing I remember is that NATO once stated that the Soviets could, with the military they had, run over Europe like Germany ran over Belgium. This was taking into account every tank the Soviet Union had ever built, even the ones that were up on monuments. Hee hee. Kinda funny/scary how people fell for it.
**
You are correct. However, these governments are forced to act like individual capitals. They are forced to compete with the rest of the world just as individual Capitalists compete with each other. This means they start operating under the principles of capitalism. They accumulate profit for productions sake, it has to be reinvested into more machinery etc. etc. So the country itself isn’t Capitalist per se. The country is forced to act like a capitalist in it’s dealings with the outside world and with it’s own population. This means the same exploitation of the work force that you see in capitalism, the same scape goating and so on. A good book on this is State Capitalism in Russia by Tony Cliff. Unfortunately, this is one area I have very little knowledge about. I do know they are not Socialist in terms of workers control, so they can’t be called Communist. I do know they operate under the same principles of capitalism. I can try to debate this; as best I can, but please be gentle.
[quote**
Hey, aren’t there any communists out there who can help Oldscratch out? He’s doing a good job, but he shouldn’t have to shoulder his side’s burden by himself.
[/quote]
**
Well thanks Larry. I’m thinking of registering again so I can have my very own sock puppet. Just like Pashley. Then I’ll have at least one person agreeing with me.
Can’t you just see it?
**
Thank you YoungScratch. At least someone won’t be shot during the revolution
history repeats itself, the first time as tragedy, the second time as farce - Karl Marx
Insofar as I understand your posts, and I’m willing to be corrected here if I’ve misunderstood you, you have stated that:
Communism is dependant upon a global revolution.
This revolution is dependant upon an overwhelming majority of people supporting its ideals within a very short period of time.
This will happen in due course. Communism is the natural successor of capitalism.
If I am correct in my interpretations of what you have said then I counter with this:
Never in recorded history has there been any sort of universal or even near-universal agreement on any governmental/philosophical platform.
I don’t see how this is “manufactured evidence” in the least. All human history has been one of strife and competition, between individuals, nations, and religions, yet you seem to argue that all 6 billion of us will (with a small dissenting minority) spontaneously decide to change this in the short space of a couple decades.
I will go ahead and concede, for the sake of argument, that if suddenly everyone in the world decided to dedicate their heart and soul to the good of all under an ideal communist regime, it would work. All the problems and objections raised heretofore in this debate would vanish and it would be an unending golden era of human existence. I’ll give you ALL that if you can tell me on what kind of evidence you support an argument that all of humanity will reach an agreement of this nature. Please tell me how on earth you can honestly expect such a vision to come about, despite the fact that it would be a radical departure from the way humanity has conducted itself since the beginning of recorded history.
Woohoo I got to someone. Soon I’ll have you resisting the Internationale by heart.
**
Generally yes. Human nature does change very slowly. It is a very slow process. However like all natural processes it is capable of leaps. On rare occasions human nature can change violently and suddenly, just as the earth can sometimes jerk suddenly and violently, or genetic mutants can create a strange mutation in species. When you see actual revolutions you see this happen. At some point I’ll actually get around to a concise history f the Spanish Civil war. Until then please read up yourselves and just post any objections you have.
**
Again agreed. All we have to do is convince the majority of people that it is in their interest to overthrow capitalism. The majority of people don’t have to be Communists, a strong minority in the Working class will do. But, a majority does have to be sick enough of the system to attempt to overthrow it. Once they get a taste of what it’s like controlling their own workplaces they won’t want to put the managers and bosses back in control. It’s much like the Bourgoise revolutions of yesteryear, the majority of people didn’t know what they wanted, they were just sick of the system. Once they got rid of it, they realized they wouldn’t want to go back. OF course a minority did and had to be forcibly repressed. For a good example, look at the French or American Revolution.
**
And if it was to your benefit to have people benefit from your work? If it was no longer to your benefit to shirk? You are making assumptions again. Right now, what you stated is very true. Yet even in this age of capitalism, where it isn’t in your interest to help others, you have people working low paying crappy jobs so they can do just that. You have people volunteering and so on. I think that people are more of a blank slate then you make them out to be.
**
I think you refuted this one yourself. We are not slaves to nature. Just because our genes do something doesn’t mean it’s in our nature. I too am talking about underlying instincts. Were just having a debate about how much of it is unchanging. How much is programmed how much is picked up from society. The degree to which people can change, the speed of their changes, I think that shows how little there is that keeps us from communism.
**
I agree completely with you. Now there are evolutionary biologists that don’t see that. I’m not trying to be dismissive of their work, but they do have an interest in the status quo. This isn’t some big conspiracy; it’s just ingrained in their nature. I’m not trying to dismiss their work. There are facts that you can’t deny when it comes to genes and biology on a small scale. When you start trying to apply this to people however you get fucked up. They only see people as they are today. Just as it was common for respected scientists to make strange claims several centuries ago, scientists today can do the same. I’m not disputing the scientific method. I am a strong believer in Science. I just believe that proletarian science is superior to bourgoise science. Why? Because Bourgoise science has a vested interest in explaining the way things are now, proletarian science has a vested interest in hanging the world. This does color how the respective scientists see things. How they use their findings, and even what they research. To deny that, is to deny human nature.
**
More or less agree with you here. I’m not sure I can say that there is an altruism gene. You are not as close to your fellow workers. One reason is that the whole machinery of Capitalism is geared towards making sure that you are not. It’s constantly saying that you can be one of the wealthy few, that you shouldn’t help your fellow man, that blacks are taking your jobs, that foreigners are taking your job, on and on.
[quote]
**
Communism requires that I feel an even stronger bond with all of my fellow workers. That my class-identity be strong enough that I sublimate my own self-interest to the needs of the group, the entire society. I susp
Woohoo I got to someone. Soon I’ll have you resisting the Internationale by heart.
**
Generally yes. Human nature does change very slowly. It is a very slow process. However like all natural processes it is capable of leaps. On rare occasions human nature can change violently and suddenly, just as the earth can sometimes jerk suddenly and violently, or genetic mutants can create a strange mutation in species. When you see actual revolutions you see this happen. At some point I’ll actually get around to a concise history f the Spanish Civil war. Until then please read up yourselves and just post any objections you have.
**
Again agreed. All we have to do is convince the majority of people that it is in their interest to overthrow capitalism. The majority of people don’t have to be Communists, a strong minority in the Working class will do. But, a majority does have to be sick enough of the system to attempt to overthrow it. Once they get a taste of what it’s like controlling their own workplaces they won’t want to put the managers and bosses back in control. It’s much like the Bourgoise revolutions of yesteryear, the majority of people didn’t know what they wanted, they were just sick of the system. Once they got rid of it, they realized they wouldn’t want to go back. OF course a minority did and had to be forcibly repressed. For a good example, look at the French or American Revolution.
**
And if it was to your benefit to have people benefit from your work? If it was no longer to your benefit to shirk? You are making assumptions again. Right now, what you stated is very true. Yet even in this age of capitalism, where it isn’t in your interest to help others, you have people working low paying crappy jobs so they can do just that. You have people volunteering and so on. I think that people are more of a blank slate then you make them out to be.
**
I think you refuted this one yourself. We are not slaves to nature. Just because our genes do something doesn’t mean it’s in our nature. I too am talking about underlying instincts. Were just having a debate about how much of it is unchanging. How much is programmed how much is picked up from society. The degree to which people can change, the speed of their changes, I think that shows how little there is that keeps us from communism.
**
I agree completely with you. Now there are evolutionary biologists that don’t see that. I’m not trying to be dismissive of their work, but they do have an interest in the status quo. This isn’t some big conspiracy; it’s just ingrained in their nature. I’m not trying to dismiss their work. There are facts that you can’t deny when it comes to genes and biology on a small scale. When you start trying to apply this to people however you get fucked up. They only see people as they are today. Just as it was common for respected scientists to make strange claims several centuries ago, scientists today can do the same. I’m not disputing the scientific method. I am a strong believer in Science. I just believe that proletarian science is superior to bourgoise science. Why? Because Bourgoise science has a vested interest in explaining the way things are now, proletarian science has a vested interest in hanging the world. This does color how the respective scientists see things. How they use their findings, and even what they research. To deny that, is to deny human nature.
**
More or less agree with you here. I’m not sure I can say that there is an altruism gene. You are not as close to your fellow workers. One reason is that the whole machinery of Capitalism is geared towards making sure that you are not. It’s constantly saying that you can be one of the wealthy few, that you shouldn’t help your fellow man, that blacks are taking your jobs, that foreigners are taking your job, on and on.
[quote]
**
Communism requires that I feel an even stronger bond with all of my fellow workers. That my class-identity be strong enough that I sublimate my own self-interest to the needs of the group, the entire society. I susp
On what counts as communist: I agree there have been no communist countries (although maybe there was the odd Spanish province during the Civil War - incidentally they were crushed by the Soviets). The progression from socialism to communism supposedly occurs when the state “withers away”. Obviously this never happened, and Marx does not explain the mechanism by which it is suppposed to occur. What counts as a communist country then is one governed by what purports to be a vanguard revolutionary party. These have existed, and they have all been unpleasant one party states.
An old point, but nonetheless apposite: if capitalism contains the seeds of its own destruction, why do you need a vanguard? This is an internal contradicton in Marx’s work: it goes against his whole methodology. On the one hand he says that ideology is conditioned by the economic structure and that “progress” through capitalism, socialism and finally communism is inevitable - simply a consequence of economic relations; and then he turns around and encourages political action by the workers.
I guess this is because “rise up” is more comforting than “in a few hundred years the proles 'll get their propers”. Or maybe it was to sell some books.
On the issue of matter of human nature and oldscratch’s comment that people are more of a blank slate than is commonly recognised: I’d recommend Peter Singer’s A Darwinian Left: Politics, Evolution and Cooperation. Whilst I don’t agree with everything he says, it’s a good read. To pull a quote from the dust-jacket:
Is it then your position that a mere political revolution constitutes a fundamental change in human nature? And that revolutions we’ve seen thus far constitute a shift anywhere near as radical as eliminating competition and avarice?
When you say that human nature is capable of sudden leaps I am forced to ask what support for this notion you have. If you mean the nature of an individual person, then I agree. If you mean the nature of all humanity, then I need something to back this up.
Finally, you likened this process to a genetic mutation. As an analogy to a global revolution that doesn’t seem to work in my view. Genetic mutations arise in individuals and, if they confer a survival benefit, are passed down through many generations as those that possess the advantage slowly overtake and supplant those who do not. Your earlier stated view seemed to say that such a revolution needed to be nearly simultaneous across the global arena. A “mutation model” doesn’t seem appropos.
You may notice that I keep coming back to this idea of a “sudden global shift in human nature.” This is because you’ve stated that a future “true” communist regime is wholly dependent upon it, you seem to believe that it is not only possible, but inevitable, yet you don’t seem to have offered support for an event I can most charitably describe as wildly improbable.
If you want to believe that the Budweiser frogs and waazup commercials have any kind of usefulness that is completely up to you. If you want to believe that having ask jeeves stickers on bananas I buy in the store serves a useful purpose, go ahead. You will never convince me of it.
[QUOTE]
That’s because you know nothing about it, other than tired cliches about evil business and materialism. Study some marketing theory, and it might open your eyes.
My, but you’re literal. I was making a joke about the solid-gold aglets. How Ford advertising a 5-star safety rating for the Windstar, and judging consumer response to the ads, to determine whether or not people want them to expend their efforts on more safety or greater fuel economy? How about Wrangler putting out a targeted ad for their jeans in a magazine geared for teens, and another in a magazine geared for seniors, to determine which age group has a demand which is left most unfulfilled by the market?
More of that literal thinking. I didn’t figure anything out! I made up a hypothetical example, to illustrate the principle. I have no idea what would really happen if I managed to arbitrarily force the production of pencils to increase, and neither do you.
You know, this point isn’t really debatable, and it alone sinks the notion of Communism. Several Nobel prizes have been awarded in the field of information transmission through the price system. If ripple effects of economic change were completely knowable, people would make a fortune in the stock market by buying and selling the right stocks. They don’t, because there is no way to know, after you get past the first few large ripples, and even though are tough to figure out. There is something called “The Law of Unintended Consequences”, which describes how government mandates can cause strange results that were not intended, sometimes completely opposite to what was intended. For example, price controls on apartments in New York were imposed to ease the burden on renters, and it made things much worse. Gasoline rationing under Ford and gasoline price controls under Nixon were imposed to ease the strain on gasoline reserves, and the demand for gasoline skyrocketed due to unforseen ripple effects. Some of these effects are direct, and are only discovered after the fact, and through difficult statistical analysis. For example, it is possible that requiring airbags in cars has actually increased the fatality rate overall. The reason was unforseeable - it turns out that when people feel safer they tend to drive more recklessly. The net result - not much change in auto fatalities (airbag ‘saves’ counteract the increase in accidents), but the fatality rate among cyclists and pedestrians goes up.
Another example: a clause in the endangered species act that forbids farmers from modifying habitat that contains endangered species. The result is exactly opposite to what was wanted - farmers are shooting endangered species on sight, because if someone else spots them, the value of their land plummets.
These are simple examples. Imagine the unforseen consequences of a planning decision for handling, say the projected increase in energy supplies when a 5-year power plant construction project finishes.
Apparently, you weren’t listening. So I’ll go over it again. Capitalist systems are efficient because of FEEDBACK. The price system acts as an incredible information transfer mechanism, which naturally filters information and directs it exactly where it needs to go. If I make graphite for pencils, and I get an increase in orders, I don’t need to know why. I raise the price because there is is more competition for my product. The people buying my graphite are notified through the price system that they are competing for a finite resource. Again, they don’t need to know why. They raise the price of pencils because of their increase in costs. This causes the demand for them to decrease exactly in proportion to how badly they are needed.
Ihe meantime, the higher profits I’m making on graphite sales stimulate me to increase production, and it also stimulates competition so more suppliers enter the market to provide graphite, which eases demand. In the meantime, THEIR decisions cause changes in the prices of things they are involved with, and those changes cascade through the system.
This is a classic negative feedback loop, and it provides stability in everything from economic systems to transistor amplifiers. Think of the difference between balancing ruler on your finger, or letting it hang straight down. The first case in unstable, because the forces acting on the ruler want to pull it away from its current position. But a hanging ruler is stable - if it moves away from equilibrium, forces act on it to push it back. That’s what prices do - increase the demand for something, and the system responds with price increases, which tend to both check that demand and stimulate production to meet it. The transmission of this information can be almost instantaneous, and can ripple through the entire economy hundreds of times in response to one simple change.
I believe a Nobel in Economics in the last few years was awarded for work on information theory in price systems (and I think there was at least one other Nobel Prize awarded in this field). That work has stimulated even computer scientists to look at ‘price’ systems for regulating scarce resources like bandwidth in networks and processor sharing in computers. By modelling a free market and letting competing resources set prices, efficiency goes up and the system becomes naturally stable. Bottlenecks don’t happen, because once resources get really scarce a bidding war takes place until a new equilibrium is established.
I said there was no way to know what the effects would be after several permutations through the system. That leads to inefficiency. But one of the reasons why countries like the Soviet Union have never been ‘purely communist’ was for this reason, among others. Almost every Communist country has tolerated a small amount of free enterprise in the form of black markets, small worker-owned farms with free markets, etc. This offloads a lot of the serious shortage problems from the broken government system, which can’t handle these small details.
[quote]
Your argument about efficiency doesn’t hold water either. Having people work together for a common goal is a lot more efficient than having people c
OldScratch: With this comment: “I just believe that proletarian science is superior to bourgoise science.” you have put yourself on the list of brain-dead idiots who should be ignored because speaking to them only gives them delusions of grandeur.
Science is science; it has nothing to do with the proletariat or the bourgoise.
If you find communism so admirable, why don’t you emigrate from California to China or Cuba.Come back in a few years to tell us what idiots we are.
I remeber watching a documentary on various communes. All but one failed miserable, and that one consisted of 3 families…not exactly a society.
And they failed for the same reasons. While everyone was all for the public good and cooperation, no one could agree, in the end, on what good looked like or what cooperation looked like.
(IMHO they also never factored in human components like greed, jealousy, sloth, etc.)
Quick point. We are not. Free trade is good for Communism. It breaks down the barriers between workers in seperate countries and makes it easier for them to organize. Go back and read when Marx and Lenin have written on the subject. I do oppose unfair trade barriers like NAFTA. It excludes the rest of the world from a little agreement between the US Canada and Mexico.
TO the Peyote Coyote, you have shown that you are incapable ofreading previous posts. I’m not going to dignify your post with an answer and I am going to ignore any future posts from you.
**
Communes are a really stupid idea. They have nothing to do with Communism and working class control. Communism, even in true form, can not exist in an isolated form under capitalism. Hopefully, now, no one else will bring up hippies as an example of why Communism can’t work.
Again I will try to answer all questions/objections, time constraints are pushing me toanswer the easy ones first.
Oldscratch, don’t feel obligated to answer. What I would like to say is that you can sit and rationalize and plan your communist utopia, as others have planned out their utopias. But they tend to fall apart when placed into the real world.
Even if the whole world becomes communist, it still comes down to people living together. I may have various grand views of how the world should work, but I spend most of my time dealing with and worrying about my house, neighborhood and work. when you institute equality of everything, instead of simply having equality of opportunity, people are going to start making comparisons, and nothing is ever truly equal.
Implementaion of communism depends on the individuals within the system. And time and time again, individuals have show that they can’t work in a system where the rewards are simply “the greater good” with no other compensation.
I have to agree with dhanson, oldscratch. Your position seems to have an inherent contradiction:
The workers have to control production in order for the economic system to be “truly” Communist.
Individual workers do not have the time and information needed to guide an entire country’s production by direct vote or independent action, so we need central planning.
If we have central planning, the workers no longer really have control over production, so it’s not “truly” Communist anymore.
And please don’t tell me the workers are the central planners… Without some sort of management authority, what you are describing might as well be pure anarchy. What is your practical plan for “worker controlled production”?
I can’t leave oldscratch out here alone. Even if I don’t agree with him on much, at least he knows what he’s talking about and that should be supported.
Originally this was not so, and is probably still not true (although definitions vary). Marx believed that he had shown, using the widely accepted rules and assumptions of classical economics, that a capitalist economy was doomed to failure. Marx also thought that history went through a series of well-defined phases. Each phase had an understandable beginning, middle, and end, and led more-or-less naturally into the next phase. Put the two together and you get a simplified form of Marxism: capitalism must fail, and it will be replaced by something different.
Marx was pretty vague about what this new system would be. About the only thing that could be said for sure was that it wouldn’t have the problems that Marx saw in capitalism. One possible way of getting rid of these problems is to abolish all private property and have the State run everything. It is not the only way, however. A gifting economy or some form of barter might do the trick.
In this sense, Marxism is neither an economic system nor a political system, but is instead just a theory about economic developments.
Marx himself advocated various social policies. Some were sensible (free public education, an end to child labor), some don’t seem so smart anymore (centralization of communications), and some he’d wished he’d thought of (free love!). It is safe to say (IMHO) that he advocated such policies primarily because he felt they would ease the transition between capitalism and whatever would come next, and not because they would necessarily be permanent fixtures in the future society.
I’m a little confused about how communism free itself from the bonds of social classes. What happens when a group of educated individuals, such as engineers, decide that they aren’t being compensated enough for the work they perform? Why would they accept that the job of the lowest maintenance worker is equal to the job of the engineer? They’ll probably want a bigger piece of the pie and if they don’t get it maybe they’ll strike. What then?
Oldscratch, you are my hero. I will be happy to jump in this debate just as soon as I have had some sleep. You have one supporter here who has actually read Capital.
I do NOT want to be a major participant in this, to my way of thinking, ridiculous debate, particularly since I think dhanson is winning it handily. HOWEVER, there are few things here that I cannot let pass:
oldscratch is quick to point out that any deviations from his definition of Communism are not true communism and therefore the failures of the system cannot be blamed on Communism, which is an economic system. On the other hand, it is okay to list every action taken by a country that recognizes private property and to cite them, not only as failures of capitalism, but as bad things caused by capitalism. This is not good argument.
For example, use by the US of its military thoughout its history are examples of government actions. You can say that they are examples of good or bad actions, but it is specious to suggest that they are the result of capitalism as an economic system.
Also, ignoring economics per se, you are all overlooking one of the prime principles that led to the US’s constitutional form of representative government: Tyranny of the majority.
Oldscratch, you keep saying that the workers (collective) will control the means of production and that the workers will plan the economy. Once, you mentioned elective representatives. Regardless of whatever else you may think, you cannot deny that this is basically a form of majority rule, whether the majority is the workers or the brown-eyed people.
If history has shown nothing else, it is that majorities can, and often are, wrong. That is why the USA was not founded based on majority rule. The government was created on the premise that each individual knows best how to achieve his own happiness and has the right to try to achieve it. Everything else, including the capitalist economy, is there in support of this notion.
You want to argue Communism as a good system, you got to convince us that any group of planners, whatever class they may or may not be members of, know what is best for society’s members better than the members know for themselves.
Sure the corporate bad-guys can manipulate me with advertising, and offer me a low wage. What they can’t do is force me to buy their products or to work in their businesses.
You want to know why I hate Communism? Is it because of inefficiency? No. Is it because of my “vested stake”. Gimme a break. My understanding of economics makes me think Communism is silly. But the reason I hate Communism is because I love freedom. Simple as that.
Only a small number of people are truly awake. These people go through life in a state of constant amazement.
Does anyone here understand dialectics? As far as I am concerned, this is not much of an argument - communism is not a set of political ideals, it is an outcome of capitalism. It has NOT happened yet, and not a single nation has ever achieved it. USSR was not a communist state, in spite of what they claimed it was. Any capitalist with any measure of education on the subject could tell you that. It was a state-owned capitalism.
I have not heard anyone here arguing against communism that seems to have an elementary grasp on the subject. I have heard the usual rhetoric of “USSR failed, so there!” and “Communists are like Nazis”. What is really sad to me is that these statements were probably made by my fellow prols, believing that they do have a vested stake in capitalism. I am a prol. I have no means of supporting myself, other than selling my labor, or buying other people’s labor, and producing a surplus so that I may profit. I did not choose this lot in life, but I do deal with it. Wage slave, or slaver.
As far as “human nature” to be competitive and greedy being presented as an unarguable “truth”, I could not disagree more. Engels went on to spend a good deal of effort showing that early hunter-gatherer and village societies depended far more on cooperation than on competition. Human nature can be defined as the culture and economic conditions one finds themselves in. I do not doubt that many here are greedy and competitive, but don’t tell me that it is natural for all humans of all economic and cultural differences to be the same. Human nature is very pliable, and is based off circumstances.
All in all, I do not have a severe hatred for capitalism. It certainly amuses me. I love watching the volatility of the whole thing. I love the fact that I, as an American citizen, use my vote to further communism without fear of being deported or jailed. I do love my right to free speech - a right I have weather a paper says I have it or not. I try to contribute as little as possible to the economic machine, but hey - that is why we have slaves in other countries making our consumer goods for us.
First of all, your comment about not seeing any good argument certainly indicates that you haven’t read the thread very attentively, since there have been quite a few posters handily poking holes in oldscratch’s arguments. Perhaps you’ll do better.
My concern is the human nature argument. Engels’ work dealt with miniscule societies. Given the tiny, relatively isolated populations, of course they needed to cooperate to survive. Slap a few dozen people down in the wilderness today and see whether they cooperate to survive. That doesn’t, however, excuse the fact that since history began, competition has been the norm. If you define human nature to be “the culture and economic conditions one finds themselves in” (an inadequate definition at best I would say) that still does not address the fact that ever since we have kept records, competition has been the rule. Blithely saying that human nature is extremely pliable is no substitution for actually offering support for the idea that we will all decide to play nice.
These arguments have been put forth:
For the communist system to work, it must rely on cooperation by the OVERWHELMINGLY VAST majority of the population.
It must also come about very quickly so that those who seize power don’t become totalitarian regimes.
Communist regimes cannot coexist alongside capitalist ones for long. The “great revolution” has to be worldwide or nearly so in a very short period of time-- a couple of decades was mentioned.
Come up with evidence supporting the notion that the vast majority of the entire world will suddenly decide to stop acting competitively, settle on a basic framework of an entirely new way of doing practically everything from government to work to schools to religion, despite the fact that there is enormous interest in keeping the status quo vested in just about every powerful institution you can name. Also, I would like to see some explanation of how “true” communism is going to become the government of choice for all the world despite the fact that it is only espoused by an insignificant minority who have usually failed to convince their beloved prols, and have botched it badly every time they have convinced them?
Without something supporting the notion of a “cosmic political awakening” I can’t give any of this any more credence than any other faith-based argument. This looks a lot like politics as religion to me.
Every argument you tried to make has already been put forth by Oldscratch. And they have all been taken up on their merits. I’m not entirely sure about the others, but I know that I have never in this debate tried to call the USSR a communist country. We have already heard about Engels claims about the early hunter-gatherers, and I believe even some recent evidence that they may have been somewhat exaggerated.
In short, read through the entire thread before you try to point out things that we missed.
I think the smaller the government in a system the more likely it is to work. Communism doesn’t work mainly because there is no incentive to produce. The government is too big in Communism (like a well fed troll). Our Capitalistic system is the only system that seems to work, so appreciate it.
Then some guy says Communism would work with tight cooperation, well we don’t live in an ideal world buddy. That’s just like saying racism could be erradicated with tight cooperation. You can’t change human nature. We’re just animals you know. You see many things work ideally but not practically. Many things work theoretically too like transporting people on Star Trek. It can all be done on paper but the real word is a different matter.
