Quote:
Originally Posted by Theodsman
It doesn't assume that. That is the system and participation it demands. Communism cannot fail, just like democracy cannot fail or monarchy cannot fail. It is not something that can fail because it does nothing on its own. The people fail to make a communist system work, usually because they fail to live up to their obligations. Just like people fail to make a democratic system or a republic system or a monarchic system work. These systems are nothing without people.
|
That just further proves my point. By your logic, communism would work perfectly if everybody did what they were supposed to. The problem is, in the real world, people don't always do what they're supposed to, for a variety of reasons. We're not ants toiling away for the good of the ant colony. There's individualists, there's lazy people, there's selfish people, etc. etc. Add them all up, and it makes for a very large group of people who are either unwilling to or incapable of making such a system work. That's why communism as a political system fails. The necessary obligations to make it work are unrealistic.
Quote:
|
You might want to research altruism and the biological, social, and psychological impetus and results of its expression.
|
Altruism, on the surface, may seem to be the opposite of selfishness. In reality, it is another form of selfishness. Humans (and animals) are far more likely to behave altruistically towards those with whom they share kinship. Biologically and in terms of evolution, this would help the genes of your close relatives (with whom you shared genetic makeup) survive to the next generation. Socially, it means helping people who share your common interests. If these people suffer, it's more likely the altruist will suffer, so helping them helps the altruist as well.
Being altruistic can reward the altruist in other ways. By helping someone else, they may receive help themselves at a later time - "You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours." Being altruistic also improves one's reputation, making it more likely for others to cooperate with you. Altruism is essentially "cooperation insurance" - you expend energy and/or resources now, in return for a future benefit.
People are more likely to cooperate if they see others behaving cooperatively. Conversely, if people aren't cooperating, other people will be less likely to cooperate. This is another nail in communism's coffin - because a lot of people can't or won't go along with the system, they'll make everybody else less likely to cooperate and make it work.
Quote:
|
People today do not want to. These types of systems have been in place for much longer than you are suggesting. Early tribal societies were largely communistic, distributing wealth and goods amongst its members in order to guarantee the survival and ability of the entire tribe and not just the excesses of the individual. All gifting societies have significant communistic elements: the redistribution of wealth through the community through ritual gift giving. In the warband, the men would bring wealth to their lord and he would then redistribute it back to the men and community according to the needs of the men and community.
|
In most of the societies you describe, for example tribes in the South Pacific and Native American tribes in the Pacific Northwest, the gifting and redistribution of wealth was less about the collective good of the tribe, and more about gaining power and influence for the person doing the redistributing. These men would take goods from their tribe members, usually by giving them small gifts or the promise of such in return, and then distribute the goods to other tribes. The goals were to establish a good reputation, and gain influence over both one's tribe and the recipient tribe. Sounds a lot like modern day politicians, no?
Plenty of tribal societies use more of a barter economy - trading useful goods between each other, sometimes over long distances. The Inuit are a good example of this, and archaeologists have found evidence that the Cro-magnons (European Paleolithic hunter-gatherers) did the same, like spear points and other tools that were carved from stones far, far away from where they ended up.
Quote:
|
The individualism of modern Americans is only a recent invention. Prior to that the individual was largely inconsequential except in the ways in which an individual could further his biological or fictitious kin-group. In fact, this lack of individualism was so prevalent that in Germanic heathen cultures prior to and during the conversion period, men who were not a part of a group and did not have the protection of a group (in other words men who were individuals above anything else) were outlawed and could be killed on sight.
|
I could not find any evidence of this whatsoever. Declaring somebody outlawed was the most extreme punishment, reserved for men who had committed the worst crimes. The Germanic tribes usually used the weregild system of fines to punish crimes. As far as individuals, aside from being the king, being a free man with property was the best thing to be. Free men without property could swear an oath to a man with property, who in exchange would support them.
Quote:
|
None of the above is a fact of communism. That is merely your interpretation and postulation on the issues of communism. This is why you and other individuals do not want to become communist, because you fear losing your possessions and wealth and distinction and individuality. But none of these things are facts of communism. And that is all I am pointing out.
|
A direct quote from the Communist Manifesto:
"If the proletariat during its contest with the bourgeoisie is compelled, by the force of circumstances, to organise itself as a class, if, by means of a revolution, it makes itself the ruling class, and, as such, sweeps away by force the old conditions of production, then it will, along with these conditions, have swept away the conditions for the existence of class antagonisms and of classes generally, and will thereby have abolished its own supremacy as a class."
For the communists to truly achieve a classless society, the ruling class must be abolished. That is a fact of communism. My opinion of why communists never achieve this is based on my experiences of interacting with other human beings, as well as my own research of human history and behavior. While my opinion may not be a "fact of communism," I believe it is accurate.
This is a good debate! I like it.
12-12-2012, 10:48 AM
Similar Threads
.jpg)
Linear Mode
