in your opinion? Obviously I'm speaking to those who hold this opinion.

I've not really thought really heavily about socio-political topics in a while, but lately I've been doing a lot of reading and thinking. Back in high school I always used to have debates about why/how communism was possible so I've heard a lot of the arguments.

But I saw someone in a post make reference to something being as "improbable as communism" or something to that effect.

At any rate, those of you who believe this, why do you?

Because it doesn't address the issue of power, and the fact that certain people desire it more than they do justice, peace, or seemless government.



******************************

______________________________
"...I'm telling ya these walls are
funny. First you hate 'em, then
you get used to 'em. Enough,
time passes, you get so you
depend on 'em. That's
"institutionalized."

Red, The Shawshank Redemption.







_________________
Inaug'ral Member of the OkaySports Hall of Fame.

Because it seems to assume that money is the only source of power. What's to say that power nodes are incompatible with communism? Are you saying that communism presupposes a non-power or post-power paradigm for people? And if so, do you think that the conditions for such a paradigm can be created?

<-- Slicka than ya average.

"Alphas are that good high...stick witcha, you can't shake that shit...like heroin. You'll always be addicted."
--OKP novembersgift

"It's a war in the streets tonight
And nobody's really feelin alright
I got a blunt for my chronic
A juice for my tonic
I know now
That I'm feelin right if it goes down"
-- Nas, "War"

"perky breasts go with anything....its like the black shoe."
-- my nigga my bruh, OKP thashadow

"I've spoken to women that said they deserved men that made 6 digits, when I asked what they were bringin' to the table, they ran their hands down their malformed bodies, like that's enough."
--OKP Grand_Royal, on chickenheads

People are always going to look for an advantage. Communism, IMO assumes that everybody will assume a role and put the state above personal power struggles. Power isn't just about money it's about Military strength, Intelligence, control of key resources, etc...

When you look at the failure of communism IMO you really see the failure of implementation of a "utopia" state. I just don't feel humans are capable of pulling it off.

You talk about socialism in it's application, and in large part you are also talking about megadeath: Hitler, Stalin, Lenin, Mao...

You would think that in a period of mass political consciousness and increased literacy that you would have a working class that wouldn't allow for power struggles like this. They woulda nipped it in the bud, right? Well, no. Not when lenin is responsible for around 8 million deaths, Stalin 20 million, Hitler at 17million, etc...

what you had was a "Coercive Utopia" (c) Brezinski

And what IMO is the inevitable evolution from socialism to totalitarianism.




******************************

_____________________________

"its wierd when they have some middle aged white man sitten there... "u've killed about 8 cops by now!"
shit i dont even think of it like that when im playing...its
all about context.
those psychologists are running a hustle...they know good
and well 1 out of every several thousand kids actually lets
these games affect them like that..but that ONE is making
them millions. cant knock da hustle!!"
-- (c) A cetain OKP that doesn't like violence in Hip Hop, but Accepts Violence in Video Games.











_________________
Inaug'ral Member of the OkaySports Hall of Fame.

>People are always going to look for an advantage.

I don't think this is true, I think it's human nature to survive, not to be greedy, or control.

>Communism, IMO assumes that everybody will assume a role
>and put the state above personal power struggles. Power
>isn't just about money it's about Military strength,
>Intelligence, control of key resources, etc...
>
>When you look at the failure of communism IMO you really see
>the failure of implementation of a "utopia" state. I just
>don't feel humans are capable of pulling it off.

Now see, this is where i really start to have a problem with these arguments. I don't understand why humans WOULDN'T be capable of "pulling this off".

>You talk about socialism in it's application, and in large
>part you are also talking about megadeath: Hitler, Stalin,
>Lenin, Mao...

Um, Columbus, George Washington, The Crusades. I don't think it is socialism that is the driving force behind mass murder/opression by powerful figures.

>You would think that in a period of mass political
>consciousness and increased literacy that you would have a
>working class that wouldn't allow for power struggles like
>this. They woulda nipped it in the bud, right? Well, no.
>Not when lenin is responsible for around 8 million deaths,
>Stalin 20 million, Hitler at 17million, etc...
>
>what you had was a "Coercive Utopia" (c) Brezinski
>
>And what IMO is the inevitable evolution from socialism to
>totalitarianism.

>>People are always going to look for an advantage.
>
>I don't think this is true, I think it's human nature to
>survive, not to be greedy, or control.
>
>>Communism, IMO assumes that everybody will assume a role
>>and put the state above personal power struggles. Power
>>isn't just about money it's about Military strength,
>>Intelligence, control of key resources, etc...
>>
>>When you look at the failure of communism IMO you really see
>>the failure of implementation of a "utopia" state. I just
>>don't feel humans are capable of pulling it off.

>Now see, this is where i really start to have a problem with
>these arguments. I don't understand why humans WOULDN'T be
>capable of "pulling this off".


Where in human history do you have an example of us "pulling it off?"

>
>>You talk about socialism in it's application, and in large
>>part you are also talking about megadeath: Hitler, Stalin,
>>Lenin, Mao...
>
>Um, Columbus, George Washington, The Crusades. I don't think
>it is socialism that is the driving force behind mass
>murder/opression by powerful figures.

That's not what I said. And still the numbers PALE in comparison. Any application of societal control is gonna be bloody in it's implementation on the state and international level. Folk don't wanna do things YOUR way. They want to do it THEIR way. In the process, folk die...I'm saying tho. Them numbers for communism/socialism aint exactly minute.

>
>>You would think that in a period of mass political
>>consciousness and increased literacy that you would have a
>>working class that wouldn't allow for power struggles like
>>this. They woulda nipped it in the bud, right? Well, no.
>>Not when lenin is responsible for around 8 million deaths,
>>Stalin 20 million, Hitler at 17million, etc...
>>
>>what you had was a "Coercive Utopia" (c) Brezinski
>>
>>And what IMO is the inevitable evolution from socialism to
>>totalitarianism.

******************************

_____________________________

"its wierd when they have some middle aged white man sitten there... "u've killed about 8 cops by now!"
shit i dont even think of it like that when im playing...its
all about context.
those psychologists are running a hustle...they know good
and well 1 out of every several thousand kids actually lets
these games affect them like that..but that ONE is making
them millions. cant knock da hustle!!"
-- (c) A certain OKP that doesn't like violence in Hip Hop, but Accepts Violence in Video Games.











_________________
Inaug'ral Member of the OkaySports Hall of Fame.

>Where in human history do you have an example of us "pulling
>it off?"

so you think capitalism is "working"?

obviously communism has never existed, only socialsm, and it failed for a myriad of reasons, one of the largest being these were socialist states surrounded by capitalism

>>>You talk about socialism in it's application, and in large
>>>part you are also talking about megadeath: Hitler, Stalin,
>>>Lenin, Mao...
>>
>>Um, Columbus, George Washington, The Crusades. I don't think
>>it is socialism that is the driving force behind mass
>>murder/opression by powerful figures.
>
>That's not what I said. And still the numbers PALE in
>comparison. Any application of societal control is gonna be
>bloody in it's implementation on the state and international
>level. Folk don't wanna do things YOUR way. They want to
>do it THEIR way. In the process, folk die...I'm saying
>tho. Them numbers for communism/socialism aint exactly
>minute.

But people need to realize there is a goal that is more important that "doing things my way", and what I mean is that if people are willing to sacrafice some personal "freedom" (freedom in the sense of freedom to own big cars, jewlery, and home theater systems) it would be to the benifit of humankind

And as far as doing things my way goes, who does things their way under capitalism? The rich. Do the people who work shitty jobs 60 hours a week to try and feed a family have freedom? Are the mcdonalds workers doing things "their way"? Do these people go "y'know, I'd LIKE to work in shitty conditions for little money with an asshole manager"?

People have this idea, largley because of the vilification of communism, that under communism you would not be able to make any decisiions, and would have your time laid out for you day by day. This is simply not true, why do you think communist orginizations fought for the 40 hour work week? It's all ABOUT workers rights. In the sense that yes, peole will always have to work, but the work you are doing should be for the benifit of EVERYONE. Not just those who pay you for your time. The work you do should be something that help people, because if everyone did that, everyone would Be helped.

And when not working, you can do what you like, have a fucking picknik, go to a ball game, but yes, it is a requirement that you put in your work.

~
This is the life I chose, or rather the life that chose me
If you can't respect that, your whole perspective is whack
Maybe you'll love me when I fade to black
If you can't respect that, your whole perspective is whack
Maybe you'll love me when I fade to black
Now if you can't respect that, your whole perspective is whack
Maybe you'll love me when I fade to black
If you can't respect that, your whole perspective is whack
Maybe you'll love me when I fade to black.. {*fading out*}

Factor that into your argument.

<-- Slicka than ya average.

"Alphas are that good high...stick witcha, you can't shake that shit...like heroin. You'll always be addicted."
--OKP novembersgift

"It's a war in the streets tonight
And nobody's really feelin alright
I got a blunt for my chronic
A juice for my tonic
I know now
That I'm feelin right if it goes down"
-- Nas, "War"

"perky breasts go with anything....its like the black shoe."
-- my nigga my bruh, OKP thashadow

"I've spoken to women that said they deserved men that made 6 digits, when I asked what they were bringin' to the table, they ran their hands down their malformed bodies, like that's enough."
--OKP Grand_Royal, on chickenheads

the people in power run the state, and they're not gonna give up that power by letting the state wither away.

--------------------------------------
"If your music was any good it would've
been stolen by the white man by now."

- Triumph the Insult Comic Dog

How many chances you want at something before you realize it aint fittna work?


******************************

_____________________________

"its wierd when they have some middle aged white man sitten there... "u've killed about 8 cops by now!"
shit i dont even think of it like that when im playing...its
all about context.
those psychologists are running a hustle...they know good
and well 1 out of every several thousand kids actually lets
these games affect them like that..but that ONE is making
them millions. cant knock da hustle!!"
-- (c) A certain OKP that doesn't like violence in Hip Hop, but Accepts Violence in Video Games.











_________________
Inaug'ral Member of the OkaySports Hall of Fame.

>Because it doesn't address the issue of power, and the fact
>that certain people desire it more than they do justice,
>peace, or seemless government.

But do you really think this is something built into these people from birth? As in a part of their nature?

Cause I'd assume that it was largley, if not completely societal. People want power because power is exerted over them. If you did live in a society where esentially everyone was equal, why would you have a drive to assume power over people? Then again, I'm obviously not of that mindstate, so I don't know why one would want that.

jewel asked a similar question.

******************************

_____________________________

"its wierd when they have some middle aged white man sitten there... "u've killed about 8 cops by now!"
shit i dont even think of it like that when im playing...its
all about context.
those psychologists are running a hustle...they know good
and well 1 out of every several thousand kids actually lets
these games affect them like that..but that ONE is making
them millions. cant knock da hustle!!"
-- (c) A certain OKP that doesn't like violence in Hip Hop, but Accepts Violence in Video Games.











_________________
Inaug'ral Member of the OkaySports Hall of Fame.

Just like Capitalism, Communism needs a century to truly develop.....

******************************

_____________________________

"its wierd when they have some middle aged white man sitten there... "u've killed about 8 cops by now!"
shit i dont even think of it like that when im playing...its
all about context.
those psychologists are running a hustle...they know good
and well 1 out of every several thousand kids actually lets
these games affect them like that..but that ONE is making
them millions. cant knock da hustle!!"
-- (c) A certain OKP that doesn't like violence in Hip Hop, but Accepts Violence in Video Games.











_________________
Inaug'ral Member of the OkaySports Hall of Fame.

I don't know if this is what he is talking about or not. But as far as communism, you would need many generations to get people to a point where everyone can wrap their minds around a clasless society after so many years of capitalism.

You would have to teach the new generations of children how to relate in this new society. Basically get to a point where the people who remember what real greed is, and may have some of those feelings of such material lust and the idea that "progress = money" to be dead and gone, or rather those ideas. Till we have a comlpete society of people who grasp the notion that their work is for the benifit of everyone, including, but not nessicarily most importantly, themselves.

~
This is the life I chose, or rather the life that chose me
If you can't respect that, your whole perspective is whack
Maybe you'll love me when I fade to black
If you can't respect that, your whole perspective is whack
Maybe you'll love me when I fade to black
Now if you can't respect that, your whole perspective is whack
Maybe you'll love me when I fade to black
If you can't respect that, your whole perspective is whack
Maybe you'll love me when I fade to black.. {*fading out*}

How do you curb the urge to return to capitalism long enough for "pure" communists to be born?

It seems like some sort of government is needed to plant thhe seeds of this government-less society.

Human history has been in general about community(Commune) without digging too deep. Think about all the reasons why people in villages or small towns tend to share more based on the resources available to them. I Agreed that communism has not had the evolutionary process that capitalism has been due. Hence, human total need for complete greed is a new thing in our development.

Seriously, historical references can be made to indigenous nations globally and we will see signs & practices of commune living from Africans, Celtics, Asians and Native Nations in America.

One of the major failures of communism is the new to compete with capitalism which really was either or. Theorists suggest process while the political leadership wanted to leap directly into results.

Yo, I love the way I am and can’t nobody out here change me
Rearrange me, tame me, try to game me, you don’t play me
When I grab the mic then shock the party spot
Your rhymes are flip-flop, I’ll rock, hip-hop
Non-stop, me nah stop rock
You can touch this, but you’ll get shot
Now what’s this all about? kris and humanity
In my face you’re happy, on vinyl you’re mad at me
Yo, pro-blackness is your solution
But I don’t really know about that style you using yo
Too many teachers in the class spoil the class
After awhile you got blabbering fucking fools
That’s worse than always talking about sex, let’s build
It ain’t enough to study clarence 13x
The white man ain’t the devil I promise
You want to see the devil take a look at clarence thomas
Now you’re saying, "who? " like you a owl
Throw in the towel, the devil is colin powell
You talk about being african and being black
Colin powell’s black, but libya he’ll attack
Libya’s in africa, but a black man
Will lead a black man, to fight against his homeland
An accomplice to the devil is a devil too
The devil is anti-human, who the hell are you?
I lecture and rap without rehearsal
I manifest as a black man but I’m universal-BDP(KRS-One)

It isn't. There are only 2 viable arguments I've ever heard over hundreds of debates:

- that there would be no motivation for people to work harder and strive to be better without the incentive of $$$. This however is clearly bullshit, it is simply our culture of greed that promotes this way of thinking, not human nature. Enivironment is WAAAAY more important than genetics in the making of our mentality, and our environment is a greedy ass capitalistic one.

- that such a large central government that would be necessary to run a communist state would lead to a huge build up in bureaucracy and an inefficient infrastructure. This however is another myth created by the common misconception that Soviet Russia was a properly communist country. It was not. The idea that good management and efficient use of resources could only be made in a market economy in the search of money is in my eyes a ridiculous proposition. Soviet Russia was one giant mess, but it didn't have to be.

What did people do before government? They depended on each other for life and survival...hence motivation for work that benefit all in the society...meaningful work.

The second argument about big government is misleading. The so-called communist states(China, USSR) have(had) a hierarchy that usually starts at the village level, something very similiar in capitallist systems: town coucil, mayor...

look at society as a junior highschool..

different people according to their wants , interests and values congregate together based on their similarities and or differences....and some groups have more of a "dominant personality" and hence can affect the overall society more than others.....


goverments are 1 of those groups.

and they mutate and disolve etc through time just like anything else.

its not a matter of "working" or "not working" ... they maintain or disolve based on the make-up of their consituency and how well they reciprocate the wants and desires of that constituency.... but just like a human being - they eventually die.

just like "united states democracy" (whatever that is) will eventually die.


in my opinion no "goverments" really "work" - they're just a subcollective form of social manipulation - or "social organization" ( depending on how you look at it) - and how well they fufill that task defines how long they "live".

but all civilizations fall in time.

>look at society as a junior highschool..
>
>different people according to their wants , interests and
>values congregate together based on their similarities and
>or differences....and some groups have more of a "dominant
>personality" and hence can affect the overall society more
>than others.....

But we've only ever witnessed these interactions in the confines of our capitalist society. The world we all grew up in obviously shapes out mentalities.

>goverments are 1 of those groups.
>
>and they mutate and disolve etc through time just like
>anything else.
>
>its not a matter of "working" or "not working" ... they
>maintain or disolve based on the make-up of their
>consituency and how well they reciprocate the wants and
>desires of that constituency.... but just like a human being
>- they eventually die.
>
>just like "united states democracy" (whatever that is) will
>eventually die.
>
>
>in my opinion no "goverments" really "work" - they're just a
>subcollective form of social manipulation - or "social
>organization" ( depending on how you look at it) - and how
>well they fufill that task defines how long they "live".
>
>but all civilizations fall in time.

so, what you are saying is rather than working towards a time when people will have equality, we should just not bother cause it's all going to crumble at some point?

lmao..

no ... I said what I said.

u shouldn't put words into peoples mouths.

what i saw as the sentimate behind your explination

this is in respone to a lot fo the previous posts so I'm putting it here

people will try to assume power, people will try to amass material possesions, and that is something that would have to be dealt with on an individual basis, by the community

and no, i'm not talking about lynch mobs, i'm talking about community action, communication, and procedure

people want to live freely and freedom favors the individual not the community.

and is freedom? where a small group of people control a large percentages of the resources and are therefore in a position to tell the masses what to do?

true communism should cherish individuality

just because you are working for the good of the commiunity does not mean you are a robot with no idividuality

co-sign!

Foxesn - u think freedom is allowing a system where the rich can afford to do what they please, get good healthcare, get a good education and pass on their wealth to the next generation to succeed again? While the poor live in slums, with bad education and little or no hope of ever prospering? Ahhhh - what freedom!

>co-sign!
>
>Foxesn - u think freedom is allowing a system where the rich
>can afford to do what they please, get good healthcare, get
>a good education and pass on their wealth to the next
>generation to succeed again? While the poor live in slums,
>with bad education and little or no hope of ever prospering?
>Ahhhh - what freedom!

no, i believe freedom is allowing every person to realize their full potential as a human being on this earth as far as it does not inflict damage on another person against his/her will.

>and is freedom? where a small group of people control a
>large percentages of the resources and are therefore in a
>position to tell the masses what to do?

its not about telling people what to do. capitalism is about fair trade. that is, where two groups come together and agree on a deal.

>true communism should cherish individuality

how can you cherish individuality when you are asked to give things up for the sake of other people? eg. money
>
>just because you are working for the good of the commiunity
>does not mean you are a robot with no idividuality

please explain. im not thinking of communists as robots, rather, people who are forced by the majority to give up their freedoms, beliefs.

I think it's the other way around potna

>>and is freedom? where a small group of people control a
>>large percentages of the resources and are therefore in a
>>position to tell the masses what to do?
>
>its not about telling people what to do. capitalism is about
>fair trade. that is, where two groups come together and agree
>on a deal.

Fair trade will never exist under capitalism. For capitalism to function, there always has to be a large lower class, and they aint gettin' the fair trade end of the stick.

>>true communism should cherish individuality
>
>how can you cherish individuality when you are asked to give
>things up for the sake of other people? eg. money

I don't follow your logic. Asking people to give up material wealth for the sake of community doesn't in any way negate individuality.

>>just because you are working for the good of the commiunity
>>does not mean you are a robot with no idividuality
>
>please explain. im not thinking of communists as robots,
>rather, people who are forced by the majority to give up their
>freedoms, beliefs.

But you're talking about "freedoms" in narrow lines, specifically meterial wealth. Yes, you wold be forced to give that up, but I don't see that as a bad thing at all.

As far as beliefs, communism should not seek to crush religion, it just shouldn't sponsor it. People should be free to worship as they please, with the hope that, as we advance people will drop religion of their own accord seeing that it isn't needed.

And compare that freedom to the individual freedoms enjoyed by those in communist states in the past.

you'd be suprised how close they are in many regards.




******************************

_____________________________

"its wierd when they have some middle aged white man sitten there... "u've killed about 8 cops by now!"
shit i dont even think of it like that when im playing...its
all about context.
those psychologists are running a hustle...they know good
and well 1 out of every several thousand kids actually lets
these games affect them like that..but that ONE is making
them millions. cant knock da hustle!!"
-- (c) A certain OKP that doesn't like violence in Hip Hop, but Accepts Violence in Video Games.











_________________
Inaug'ral Member of the OkaySports Hall of Fame.

>And compare that freedom to the individual freedoms enjoyed
>by those in communist states in the past.

well you gotta name some 'communist states' first. whenever i bring up russia people say that wasnt really communist. others, to cover the whole 100 million people dieing under communism arguement, come back saying there actually hasnt been a true communist state.

firebrand is wrong - every so-called communist state that has ever existed has to my knowledge been horribly oppressive and as it seems the norm these days to describe it, unfree (though I'm not sure exactly what thats supposed to mean). The fact is no true communist state has ever existed, not Russia, not China, not Cuba, nowhere - just to clarify.

>firebrand is wrong - every so-called communist state that
>has ever existed has to my knowledge been horribly
>oppressive and as it seems the norm these days to describe
>it, unfree (though I'm not sure exactly what thats supposed
>to mean). The fact is no true communist state has ever
>existed, not Russia, not China, not Cuba, nowhere - just to
>clarify.

whenever i argue against communism i encounter to different arguements which maked it difficult because i spend half my time trying to figure out where that person is coming from.

if there hasnt been a true communist state ever then proponents of communism are argueing ideals rather than evidence that it would work better than our current systems. which of course throws the debate in circles.

Yes this is true. There is no real evidence for the workings of communism, only theory, so yes its open to debate. ANyone who wants to point to Russia for the potential benefits of communism ain't talking much sense.

?

what defines "true"?

******************************

_____________________________

www.northernarc.net

i agree. thats why its so hard to debate this sort of thing.

Yes this is true. There is no real evidence for the workings of communism, only theory, so yes its open to debate. ANyone who wants to point to Russia for the potential benefits of communism ain't talking much sense.

>if there hasnt been a true communist state ever then
>proponents of communism are argueing ideals rather than
>evidence that it would work better than our current systems.
>which of course throws the debate in circles.



______________________________

*TWINNING*

______________________________

*TWINNING*

Erich Fromm

...there would need to be a spiritual base for Communism to work and survive.

That means a complete change in world view. People would have to have complete faith that nature, life, and justice are of greater importance than the desires of self.

I partially agree with what someone said earlier, that it would take generations for this to happen. But it would be much greater than 100 years. Capitalism has been practiced in different forms for thousands of years and still has not been perfected and is overrun with corruption. Plus, the foundation of capitalism is cemented by spiritual systems that in some way support the ideas and theories of Capitalism.

I think a number of the countries that have tried Communism recognized this and attempted to rid their societies of spiritual or religious systems, but the people as a whole didn't buy into it. Historically, the Christians forced their way of life on the societies that they conquered, but even that took time and interbreeding. Once the people bought into it, though, such beliefs were inseperable from capitalism.

You would need a movement that could rival the influence of Christianity to make Communism a viable economic system.

>...there would need to be a spiritual base for Communism to
>work and survive.

no, just no

>That means a complete change in world view. People would
>have to have complete faith that nature, life, and justice
>are of greater importance than the desires of self.

and that amounts to a spiritual base somehow?

>I partially agree with what someone said earlier, that it
>would take generations for this to happen. But it would be
>much greater than 100 years. Capitalism has been practiced
>in different forms for thousands of years and still has not
>been perfected and is overrun with corruption.

there is no "perfected capitalism", you cannot have capitalism withour a large majority of the people being poor, and all the resources pooled at the top

>Plus, the
>foundation of capitalism is cemented by spiritual systems
>that in some way support the ideas and theories of
>Capitalism.

which, imo, is a huge problem

>I think a number of the countries that have tried Communism
>recognized this and attempted to rid their societies of
>spiritual or religious systems, but the people as a whole
>didn't buy into it. Historically, the Christians forced
>their way of life on the societies that they conquered, but
>even that took time and interbreeding. Once the people
>bought into it, though, such beliefs were inseperable from
>capitalism.

>such beliefs were inseperable from
>capitalism.

I agree with that

>You would need a movement that could rival the influence of
>Christianity to make Communism a viable economic system.

Communism is that movement

...explain your disagreement.

"No, just no!" does really say much.

There has to be a ideological acceptance by the masses in order for any political or economic system to work. Tell me one such system that exists independent of some sort of spiritual influence. You can't just throw a system at the feet of a people and expect them to pick it up and run with it. That's why force has been used in the system's establishment...and anything done totally by force will always fail. There has to be a deeper level to the movement. If it's not spiritual, the only other thing I've seen work to change the minds of a group of people is a common history, enemy, or other threat. Ideological speeches won't do it alone.

Unfortunately, greed, to some extent, can be found in most of the world's cultures. How do you rid society of this strong desire? Who has that answer? The only place I've found it is in spiritual belief systems. Individuals can adopt whatever philosophies they wish, but in order for it to work on a grand scale, ties would have to be made between one's spiritual self and the spiritual selves of others.

Please come with a better argument.

Are you disturbed by the word "spirituality" or something?

>Are you disturbed by the word "spirituality" or something?

I think u just hit the nail on the head. I personally would be careful to use the word spiritual in any instance that did not relate to religion, and religion is the last tool you wanna be using for a revolution. Just call it people ideological beliefs, spirituality is a dangerous word.

...equate religion and spirituality. I'm all about drawing the distinction between the two.

But name a more effective instrument for long lasting change, whether good or bad. Would the conquest of the Western Hemisphere have been accomplished without the use of the bible along side the sword? Would capitalist beliefs be so engrained within our society if they didn't have a foot hold in the Judao/Christian church? If so, by what means?

The trick about figuring out what could be is to study what has been, which means working backwards with the information that you have at hand. Thus, the purpose of studying and UNDERSTANDING history.

Don't worry I'm the last person that needs convincing about the significance of history, I'm a history undergraduate! And yes religion has been at the centre of nearly all major events and nearly all societies for the whole of history. But in the modern era I think we've moved away from that, religion is less important than it ever has been. However I see your point, if you wish to use the word spirituality in a non-religious context ie. more of a feeling underpinning a movement, then yes it is essential - I just don't like using that word. Just the problem of semantics I suppose.

and he has a certain deadly weakness concerning abuse of power.

and this does not occur in a capitalist society?

...makes a capitalist a capitalist.

But how do we get "man" to a point where sharing power and wealth equally is a welcome and acceptable practice? Isn't that the reasoning behind Communism?

>But how do we get "man" to a point where sharing power and
>wealth equally is a welcome and acceptable practice?

Yeah I don't have a defiite answer to this. I think for me the transition is the real problem. How can we change people's perceptions on wealth? I think really its gonna have to be a slow progression through generations, its faaar to ingrained in our current society to be greedy for any revolution or communist state to work in our lifetimes. But u know, that dosen't mean we shouldn't keep plugging away.

greed and power-hungriness help to drive the engine that makes society go

greed and power-hungriness are indeed what makes the capitalist world go round. But what flashiusclay was saying was that a communist state could not work because people would always abuse their power. I was simply replying that that is no different to how things are now.

and even profit from it. A communist society presumes a day when people will no longer be power-hungry.

Firstly in a communist society power would not = money. So peoples lust for power could still be fulfilled by aiming to hold positions of power or authority.

Secondly I would say, as i did before, you cannot definitively say what human gentic character is, nobody can. How far are peoples' mentalities affected by genes, how much by environment. The most common consensus, and one I'd support, is that it has far far more to do with environment. And our environment tells us from the day we're born to be greedy. If the social norm changed to a world where unselfishness was normal, the world could be a whole lot better place. I know most people reading this will see me as some idealistic crackhead. However think how far your perception of reality is influenced by your surroundings. The idea of general unselfishness probably seems as ridiculous as people 300 years ago thinking that the monarchy could be overthrown. Things always seem idealistic and impossible before the event, but in hindsight obvious. One day I beleive this will be true of communism.

But with modern society evolving as it is, I don't see communism happening anytime in the next few hundred years, and beyond that, who can even predict?

you could argue that in the last hundred years "capitalism" or "capitalist organiztion" ( whatever that means ) has been largly or partly responsbile for mass resource extraction - which in turn has led to many advancments in human understanding - including medicines and mass cultivation and transportation of food.

so much so the world population has gone from under 1 billion to 6.5 billion as a result of these benevolent advances......

that mass resource extraction isn't strictly a "benevolent advance". But I do think our capitalist society does a decent job of deriving some benefit from people's natural greed and hunger for power. It could do a much better job, but communism is unrealistic because it doesn't really make any provision for those facets of human nature.

>you could argue that in the last hundred years "capitalism"
>or "capitalist organiztion" ( whatever that means ) has been
>largly or partly responsbile for mass resource extraction -
>which in turn has led to many advancments in human
>understanding - including medicines and mass cultivation and
>transportation of food.

And yet, under capitalism, with all these advancements, thousands starve to death every day, or don't recieve the treatments they need to survive.

Great, capitalism brought about medical advancments, but now those things are being used for profit, not for helping humanity.

>so much so the world population has gone from under 1 billion
>to 6.5 billion as a result of these benevolent advances......

With an overwhelming majority of those people living in horrible conditions when there are enough resorces int he world to clothe, shelter, and feed everyone.

some people are just naturally power-hungry, some people are just naturally greedy, and a whole lotta people (myself included) are just naturally lazy, and would not work to the fullest productive capacity (or some reasonable facsimile thereof) without a sliding scale of renumeration and/or the possibility of being fired if you don't work hard enough. "From each according to ability, to each according to need" is a beautiful ideal, but uh, what's in it for me?

>some people are just naturally power-hungry, some people are
>just naturally greedy, and a whole lotta people (myself
>included) are just naturally lazy, and would not work to the
>fullest productive capacity (or some reasonable facsimile
>thereof) without a sliding scale of renumeration and/or the
>possibility of being fired if you don't work hard enough.
>"From each according to ability, to each according to need" is
>a beautiful ideal, but uh, what's in it for me?

First off, let me say, I don't for a second thingk that human nature is to be greedy. It is to survive, but under a capitalist society, people see other people with so much more than them, and lust after it. Matter of fact, we're taught that that is good and right. Hey, lets all listen to Ann Raynd, greed is a virtue!

Second.......off, humans can overcome human nature. If human nature is indeed greed, and we are so bound to it, what of the people who are so selfless, the mother Theresas, the MLKs, the people who gave so much asking little in return. Well, they are exceptions, sure, but did theynot overcome their "nature". And what of soldiers, if human nature is to survive, going into battle is defying the basest of instincts! Sometimes for very little reason.

people prescribing any moral highground are basically saying:
"everyone should be nice to each other".

well, thats cool... but the reality is everyone isn't nice to each other.....and individuals have to learn to adapt according to their wants , interests and desires.

I really don't see how this thread can progress past that simple observation.

...is that man doesn't have the ability to grow past his limitations? That we have reached our evolutionary peak, so there is really no where for us to go from here but down?

no..im implying what I said.

...you basically have no hope for man and his possibilities to grow, which is a very limited and flawed view.

With this in mind, I'm interpreting you as saying capitalism will last forever as the most perfect system that works with man's limited capacity to evolve past the his simple wants and desires.

If I'm wrong, expand your statement/"observation" to say what you really mean. Don't let me put words in your mouth.

who ever said "evolution" (if it exist) is whatever ideal you have in your head?
mabe "evolution" is a 180 degree flip from whatever your thinking....
you don't know.

I hate to burst your bubble but your hearing what you want to hear.

...Growth. Man's ability to GROW. We can prove scientifically that things grow, right?

How about LEARN? Can that be proven?

D-O Y-O-U D-O-U-B-T M-A-N-S A-B-I-L-I-T-Y T-O G-R-O-W P-A-S-T H-I-S C-U-R-R-E-N-T L-I-M-I-T-A-T-I-O-N-S O-R L-E-A-R-N T-H-A-T T-H-E-R-E A-R-E B-E-T-T-E-R W-A-Y-S T-O E-X-I-S-T O-N E-A-R-T-H T-O-G-E-T-H-E-R?

That's the only thing that will validate your point. Or can you validate it yourself?

people are always growing and learning..

People have talked about "greed" and "power" but the real issue is dealing with disproportionate allotments of resources. Small groups can effectively trade and barter bc they're likely more familiar with each other.

But how do you impel people to share with other far flung people they have little to no contact with? Even if they were aware of others hardships, wouldn't they still be more concerned about the possiblity of hardship locally?

It seems there needs to be some way of determining where resources would do the most "good". But I noticed someone said that communism requires the disollution of government. Without some sort of delegation of authority, how are the needs of individuals supposed to be met in a massive, communist society?

On a simpler note, how do you get people to mine coal? I'm sure some people would naturally want to, but most people that do it right now onl do it bc they have little choice. Would these people still be "oppressed" by the specter of danger to their health and well-being, no matter how fairly medical attention was distributed? Aren't there some jobs few people would do unless they absolutely had to?

Obviously I'm not the foremost expert on communism. I will, however, answer your questions to the best of my ability.

>People have talked about "greed" and "power" but the real
>issue is dealing with disproportionate allotments of
>resources. Small groups can effectively trade and barter bc
>they're likely more familiar with each other.
>
>But how do you impel people to share with other far flung
>people they have little to no contact with? Even if they were
>aware of others hardships, wouldn't they still be more
>concerned about the possiblity of hardship locally?

Well, there would obviously have to be a worldwide distribution system. People tend to think of communism (at the roots) as people in small villages in huts. While there is some truth to that (we'd have to be less reliant on technology for sure, but nowhere near the "hut" level) it is a misnomer. Food and other goods and resources would have to be shared worldwide. To sustain this, we would need to employ the smae metods we do now, trains, trucks, ships, airplanes, cars. There would also have to bo worldwide communication and orginization for this to take place, obviously.

>It seems there needs to be some way of determining where
>resources would do the most "good". But I noticed someone said
>that communism requires the disollution of government. Without
>some sort of delegation of authority, how are the needs of
>individuals supposed to be met in a massive, communist
>society?

Well, it's not "autority" that is needed, but organization.As far as determining "where" resorces go, I don't have an answer to the specifics of that except that it would be besed as much as possible on need.

>On a simpler note, how do you get people to mine coal? I'm
>sure some people would naturally want to, but most people that
>do it right now onl do it bc they have little choice. Would
>these people still be "oppressed" by the specter of danger to
>their health and well-being, no matter how fairly medical
>attention was distributed? Aren't there some jobs few people
>would do unless they absolutely had to?

One thing that I've heard a lot of talk about is that people wouldn't be forced to pick one job and stick to it the rest of their life. Obviously there would be some persuits where this was fairly nessecary, genetics research and things of that nature. Although, it may not even be nessecary in those fields, because in a communist state, information would (ideally, but of course) be free flowing. So geneticists who make a discovery in canada would immideatly communicate their findings and methods to all geneticists all over the world. There wouldn't be any reason to hide findings (profit) so a scientific community could be much more efficient.

But I digress, as far as jobs are concerned, every one able would be made to do at least some physical labor. Mainly so they know what it is like. So, hopefully, cole mining and other dangerous jobs could be farmed out (at least in part) to people only doing it for 6 months of their life, or something like that. Obiously though, there would be people doing it much longer than that, especially people to train all the new people coming in.

This may not be AS efficient, in fact probably not. But we would no longer need to be as efficient as natural resources like coal would be used so much more sparingly.

I look at it like I look at dating women....

I would never settle w/ a girl i didn't find attractive or a girl with a lame personality...Instead I chase the girl with the most attractive qualities to me.....Just like all women do as well when dating men.....


To me , a "true" Communist state would be a return to the caveman days.......Hey, I think its all good to long for a society where everyone's on the same playing field...But the reality is, that its not and never will be.....






"We all got flaws
Don't ever try to think that you perfect
We all are human beings
There's bullshit at the surface
Sometimes, I mean we rhyme
Damn, we ain't prophets
And if you think so, you need to stop it
So jump back inside your shell
Let your million dollar thoughts propel" ---Q-TIP

because communism is an ideal, like pure capitalism or the perfect peach ice cream. and the world is not an ideal place. you could never have total communal ownership in which some group doesn't exercise at least some power over another. from each according his ability to each according to their need sounds good, but because people are inherently flawed and prone to exploit collective situations at some point the people with ability will take more than their fair share.

... it is an Atheistic philosophy that begins with several false premises and mis-understandings of human nature.

peace.

ps -glad to elaborate if asked.

peace again.

>
>... it is an Atheistic philosophy that begins with several
>false premises and mis-understandings of human nature.

Two things - atheistic how? and who are you to say what human nature is? now we're moving strongly onto genes vs environment ground and thats pretty damn disputable. And I said before most recent thought has put more emphasis on the effect of environment rather than your genes on your mentality and personality. There is no consensus which says humans are inherently selfish.

>... it is an Atheistic philosophy that begins with several
>false premises and mis-understandings of human nature.

False premises? please expand on that.

Human nature, I've already spoken on my feelings in this thread.

Atheistic? Good.

europeans called communism.

I don't think it's human nature to be that way but people are raised to think that it's okay to be that way as long as they place nice with their "friends". a lot of americans are all fucked up in the head about these issues.

honestly, i'm down for the idea of communism with the right people. They have planned communities where people actually live together in a communist manner, locally it can def work. it's about peoples who's minds are already there.

u r right, it couldn't work right now with the way people have been conditioned to htink. Its gonna have to be a transitional thing, but we gotta try and make strides or it'll never happen. At some point people have gotta stop qualifying success with money, its as simple as that.