Just Curious

[Homicidalheathen]

How would you feel if someone your VERY close to, someone your rather involved with or entangled with....said, you know.....Communism isn't such a bad thing. Its what people do with it or what they think of it that makes it bad. The idea of it actually works and is a good thing.

Just curious. Would it set you off? It kinda did me.....just sorta shook my head.

[creatureofthenyte]

it would make me run the other way.

[Fierce Critter]

I like the idea of socialism, actually.

But communism isn't a great example of it.

Frankly, there isn't really any good example of it. Great in theory, hard to make reality.

No, I wouldn't run. I'd discuss it and see where they're coming from.

[Msterbeau]

The idea of it isn't so bad.. but it doesn't take into account human nature. And the way the Russians practiced it... wasn't really communism.

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

I have never met anyone that truly understood the idea of communism that didn't think it was a good idea if you could somehow take the humans out of the equation. Same with Socialism.

Unfortunately, people do get involved... so every case of communism and socialism that we have ever had has ended in mass graves.

[Steven]

what tina said. and both marks.

in general I love the idea of communal existence.....in american that equates to beign a hippie tree hugger freak. In Europe it was somethign else. But if we could as humans actually make it work, that would be something...

I just dont think we can make it work.

[Kit Kat P]

I am with someone who believes that the concept of it is good idea and was a registered communist for awhile. She believes the same as the Marc's. I would never run from someone's opinion w/o first finding out why they have it.

[Fierce Critter]

what tina said. and both marks.

!??!??!??!?!!!!Tina??!??!?!??!?

[pomba gira]

what tina said. and both marks.

in general I love the idea of communal existence.....in american that equates to beign a hippie tree hugger freak. In Europe it was somethign else. But if we could as humans actually make it work, that would be something...

I just dont think we can make it work.

Agreed. Nothing wrong with socialism in theory, we just aren't ready for it yet. And as Marc suggested, the whole totalitarian thing we've learned to associate with communism really has nothing to do with the basic idea... any more than relentless persecution of... well... anyone... has to do with the actual teachings of Christ.

I do believe humans are rapidly evolving to the point where it could work, though. Probably not in our lifetime, but in the grand scale of history... soon.

[ZhukovCodeslinger]

there is no such thing as a perfectly executed political theory. Most work wonderfully on paper or in the minds of deluded zealots. I guess you could say the same thing about religion... the end results are never as wonderful as the book says it will be.... and there is always someone being hurt either physically, mentally, culturally, politically, or socioeconomically (often a mix of all 5).

Show me a system that works perfectly and you will have a great example of wishfull thinking, an outright lie or mostlikely a synthesis of both. What a perfect way to apply Hegels' dialectic <smile> (there is a nice inside joke... hopefully someoen gets it)

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

influencing our thought processes again...

[Homicidalheathen]

Agreed. Nothing wrong with socialism in theory, we just aren't ready for it yet.

Thats exactly what this person said....lol

[Head Wreck]

communism or fascism.

either way they get cool jackboots and a uniform FTW!

[Fierce Critter]

I saw a very good documentary on socialism through history.

The closest it came to working was the Kibbutz system. But what eventually brought it down was the same thing that made every other socialist situation fail.

Greed.

People just plain want what others've got. Human nature.

In a way, even the worst examples of socialist - communism in China, the USSR, etc - the worst of what happened with them was because the people at the top were greedy. Socialism to them was a way to keep the "little people" little, and keep them at the top. If the "little people" made too much noise about inequity, well, we know what happens.

[ttogreh]

There are currently 85 communes housing nearly 5,000 people in the United States. The problem with communism is NOT people... it is the concept of the state. A commune only works when everyone agrees to pull their weight. Since humans are social animals, small communities don't really need any concept of "the state" to function.

It's when things get bigger, roughly larger than sixty or so people, that some form of organization must be instilled. Hmm... for most of human history, people generally lived in nomadic or semi-nomadic bands of less than sixty people...

So, how does one enforce order and efficiency in a commune larger than sixty people? Consensus and agreed-upon rule enforcers could probably work up to about 100 to 150 people, but after that point, consensus may very well not be able to be achieved.

The best answer would be for a large commune to split off into two or more smaller communes. Unfortunately, the best answer is not always the most efficient. For large projects to be enacted, such as, say, a gigantic square pyramid made out of limestone, there has to be a command-and-control structure.

The state, not the concepts of communism, socialism, libertarianism, anarchism, or any other -ism you can think of, is what corrupts a way of living. A political association with effective dominion over a geographical area is one of the most wonderful and terrible inventions of human kind.

With this idea, we have been able to balloon to 6.6 billion of us. However, an idea is only as good as it is useful. I can maintain almost constant contact with sixty of my most favorite people in the world through the modern tools available to me. Moreover, with money no longer bound by the chains of physical existence, the whole of humanity, if we ever figured out how to do it, could pay for the services and goods consumed without a thought.

In a world where the tribe can once again be relevant and money is no longer an issue... how long can the state truly be relevant? Now, look, I am not an anarchist, per se... However, I am a believer in the power of human ingenuity. I truly believe that within the next ten or twenty generations, the state, an idea that has served the last 250 generations, will no longer be needed.

What will replace it, a weird fusion of tribalism, global consensus, and concepts not yet thought of, is anyone's guess.

[Steven]

!??!??!??!?!!!!Tina??!??!?!??!?

Holy Sheep Shit.

I just now caught that I did this....

what CAMILLE said....and whatafukka is wrong with me???!!

[Steven]

There are currently 85 communes housing nearly 5,000 people in the United States. The problem with communism is NOT people... it is the concept of the state. A commune only works when everyone agrees to pull their weight. Since humans are social animals, small communities don't really need any concept of "the state" to function.

It's when things get bigger, roughly larger than sixty or so people, that some form of organization must be instilled. Hmm... for most of human history, people generally lived in nomadic or semi-nomadic bands of less than sixty people...

So, how does one enforce order and efficiency in a commune larger than sixty people? Consensus and agreed-upon rule enforcers could probably work up to about 100 to 150 people, but after that point, consensus may very well not be able to be achieved.

The best answer would be for a large commune to split off into two or more smaller communes. Unfortunately, the best answer is not always the most efficient. For large projects to be enacted, such as, say, a gigantic square pyramid made out of limestone, there has to be a command-and-control structure.

The state, not the concepts of communism, socialism, libertarianism, anarchism, or any other -ism you can think of, is what corrupts a way of living. A political association with effective dominion over a geographical area is one of the most wonderful and terrible inventions of human kind.

With this idea, we have been able to balloon to 6.6 billion of us. However, an idea is only as good as it is useful. I can maintain almost constant contact with sixty of my most favorite people in the world through the modern tools available to me. Moreover, with money no longer bound by the chains of physical existence, the whole of humanity, if we ever figured out how to do it, could pay for the services and goods consumed without a thought.

In a world where the tribe can once again be relevant and money is no longer an issue... how long can the state truly be relevant? Now, look, I am not an anarchist, per se... However, I am a believer in the power of human ingenuity. I truly believe that within the next ten or twenty generations, the state, an idea that has served the last 250 generations, will no longer be needed.

What will replace it, a weird fusion of tribalism, global consensus, and concepts not yet thought of, is anyone's guess.

this was lovely and very wordy and impressive and yet it still says to me that people...people...fail to function well in large groups. I feel as if your giving me a solution based on a recipe that works (which I dont have a problem with per se) without noting that there was a need for said recipe in the first place. Cause you know, you got peoplez in the mix....

how many buffalo used to herd togethor by the way?

[Steven]

Agreed. Nothing wrong with socialism in theory, we just aren't ready for it yet. And as Marc suggested, the whole totalitarian thing we've learned to associate with communism really has nothing to do with the basic idea... any more than relentless persecution of... well... anyone... has to do with the actual teachings of Christ.

I do believe humans are rapidly evolving to the point where it could work, though. Probably not in our lifetime, but in the grand scale of history... soon.

Im confused by this.

and Im not being critical of you Hille cause I dig on you.

but what makes you beleive that we are rapidly evolving as humans toward this point? honest question...

[ttogreh]

Well, Steven, I think the need for a return to how people lived for hundreds of thousands of years is pretty clear: We can be complete jerks in large groups. At the same time, we can also build the interstate highway system or go to the moon in large groups.

What the technological revolution has done in the last 250 years is, essentially, made large groups increasingly more powerful, and as such, small groups have become more powerful, as well. The pyramids in Las Vegas took a few years to build with just one group of contractors (maybe more, I haven't researched the project), the Pyramids in Giza took nearly THIRTY years to build, with thousands upon thousands of people working on it.

There is a power saturation point. Most folks just want to see their loved ones happy and healthy, and treating other people nicely. If a group of sixty or less folks can muster the assets of an industrialized nation some 150 years ago, NOW, and technology continues to advance... the state becomes increasingly less relevant.

Of course, this is all academic. I don't think technology or society will progress enough in our lifetimes to challenge the accrued power of the state, a power that it has accumulated for 8,000 years.

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

What your saying only works if you ignore a few things...

like Tribal leaders...

Kings, Queens and Emperors oh my... Elders, councils...

Basically, even tribes have government of some kind.

The notion of "state" has existed since we became farmers and started "owning" the land.

and look, even going with your logic... the "state" is an idea thatis implemented by People.

People are still the root problem.

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

and yeah, we could return to how we were for (hundreds of) thousands of years... which means killing someone not part of our clan that dare walk our gathering fields is cool. Thats my damn raspberry, I dont care how hungry you are.

[ttogreh]

Gaf, I am not arguing against the concept of government. That is a straw man.

Moreover, the assumption that human beings for the first 6,400 generations were at default jealous, violent, and altogether war like is rather pessimistic. I think that speaks volumes on your way of viewing the world.

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

Oh, then I'll just forget I read your statements about the State.

and um... People have always killed each other over stupid shit like food and a place to sleep. Always. Archeology proves it.

[Steven]

What your saying only works if you ignore a few things...

like Tribal leaders...

Kings, Queens and Emperors oh my... Elders, councils...

Basically, even tribes have government of some kind.

The notion of "state" has existed since we became farmers and started "owning" the land.

and look, even going with your logic... the "state" is an idea thatis implemented by People.

People are still the root problem.

what he said

[Steven]

and um... People have always killed each other over stupid shit like food and a place to sleep. Always. Archeology proves it.

what he said again.