DrCaneJr
|
  |
| Joined: 26 Dec 2011 |
| Total Posts: 4970 |
|
|
| 02 Feb 2012 05:34 PM |
| The government having complete control over the citizens lives and the economy. What do you guys think of his description? |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 02 Feb 2012 05:38 PM |
herpa derp
The government -if there is one-, would not take part of the economy and would not necessarily be socially authoritarian. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
DrCaneJr
|
  |
| Joined: 26 Dec 2011 |
| Total Posts: 4970 |
|
|
| 02 Feb 2012 05:40 PM |
| His definition is actually from my textbook O.O I'm pretty sure in Communism everyone is equal... there would be no government... |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
| |
|
DrCaneJr
|
  |
| Joined: 26 Dec 2011 |
| Total Posts: 4970 |
|
|
| 02 Feb 2012 05:46 PM |
| Well my history teacher is openly a social engineer so doesn't surprise me that he would say something like that. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
pepper0
|
  |
| Joined: 01 Sep 2007 |
| Total Posts: 12032 |
|
|
| 02 Feb 2012 06:39 PM |
Thats pretty much it in a nutshell. However, I would have given a more of a description, like what it was suppose to do, and what it actually does and how the function of communism cant work.
|
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
zct35
|
  |
| Joined: 07 Jan 2012 |
| Total Posts: 155 |
|
|
| 02 Feb 2012 06:42 PM |
No one knows what communism is because they never bothered to look it up. More at 11. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
pepper0
|
  |
| Joined: 01 Sep 2007 |
| Total Posts: 12032 |
|
|
| 02 Feb 2012 06:42 PM |
Thats what they all say.
I read Marx's book
Its a complete ant total farce. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
pepper0
|
  |
| Joined: 01 Sep 2007 |
| Total Posts: 12032 |
|
| |
|
Avogadro
|
  |
| Joined: 14 Nov 2010 |
| Total Posts: 4011 |
|
|
| 02 Feb 2012 06:47 PM |
| I wasn't taught the real definition of communism until freshman year. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 02 Feb 2012 06:50 PM |
"I read Marx's book Its a complete ant total farce."
1) Which one? 2) Why do you think that? |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
pepper0
|
  |
| Joined: 01 Sep 2007 |
| Total Posts: 12032 |
|
|
| 02 Feb 2012 07:08 PM |
Government cant just go away.
You need government to defend the rights of the people, and defend them against those who seek to abuse it.
Also, according to human nature, you cant make an entire population 'share' everything.
When we buy things, there is a reason why the cashier say's 'thank you' before you leave. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
DrCaneJr
|
  |
| Joined: 26 Dec 2011 |
| Total Posts: 4970 |
|
|
| 02 Feb 2012 07:10 PM |
| No one needs a government, government are the people who will oppress the rights of the people. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 02 Feb 2012 07:18 PM |
"Government cant just go away. You need government to defend the rights of the people, and defend them against those who seek to abuse it."
We have been able to live without a government.
"Also, according to human nature, you cant make an entire population 'share' everything."
Yes, you can, and it might even be in the people's self-interest to do so (an essay I'm reading, called "The Gift" by Marcel Mauss is about that, although if the Wikipedia article is right it also says that altruism is present too). There are examples of gift economies, if fact, even parts of OWS use a gift economy, as shown by grim. Another essay I read ("Fragments of an Anarchist Anthropology", by David Graeber, which is where I learned about Mauss' book) gives the example of Tsimihety people in Madagascar, who have managed to avoid the Malagasy government and achieve a strong egalitarianism. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fragments_of_an_Anarchist_Anthropology |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 02 Feb 2012 07:32 PM |
I'll quote part of that last essay.
For anarchists who do know something about anthropology, the arguments are all too familiar. A typical exchange goes something like this:
Skeptic: Well, I might take this whole anarchism idea more seriously if you could give me some reason to think it would work. Can you name me a single viable example of a society which has existed without a government?
Anarchist: Sure. There have been thousands. I could name a dozen just off the top of my head: the Bororo, the Baining, the Onondaga, the Wintu, the Ema, the Tallensi, the Vezo...
Skeptic: But those are all a bunch of primitives! I’m talking about anarchism in a modern, technological society.
Anarchist: Okay, then. There have been all sorts of successful experiments: experiments with worker’s self-management, like Mondragon; economic projects based on the idea of the gift economy, like Linux; all sorts of political organizations based on consensus and direct democracy...
Skeptic: Sure, sure, but these are small, isolated examples. I’m talking about whole societies.
Anarchist: Well, it’s not like people haven’t tried. Look at the Paris Commune, the revolution in Republican Spain...
Skeptic: Yeah, and look what happened to those guys! They all got killed!
The dice are loaded. You can’t win. Because when the skeptic says “society,” what he really means is “state,” even “nation-state.” Since no one is going to produce an example of an anarchist state—that would be a contradiction in terms—what we’re really being asked for is an example of a modern nation-state with the government somehow plucked away: a situation in which the government of Canada, to take a random example, has been overthrown, or for some reason abolished itself, and no new one has taken its place but instead all former Canadian citizens begin to organize themselves into libertarian collectives. Obviously this would never be allowed to happen. In the past, whenever it even looked like it might—here, the Paris commune and Spanish civil war are excellent examples— the politicians running pretty much every state in the vicinity have been willing to put their differences on hold until those trying to bring such a situation about had been rounded up and shot.
There is a way out, which is to accept that anarchist forms of organization would not look anything like a state. That they would involve an endless variety of communities, associations, networks, projects, on every conceivable scale, overlapping and intersecting in any way we could imagine, and possibly many that we can’t. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 02 Feb 2012 07:41 PM |
Pepper, Marx was an economic genius. While he was wrong on many counts, he was right on others. That sound you hear every time a depression or recession hits is Marx quietly chuckling in his grave. If you notice that the median wage in the US is some $6,000 below GDP, that's him as well.
Marx the revolutionary was an idiot who didn't realize that capitalism was good for the poor. A distressed Engles pointed that out to him on several occasions, but no matter. But Marx the Economist made several interesting contributions, none of which should be disregarded. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 02 Feb 2012 07:44 PM |
"Marx the revolutionary was an idiot who didn't realize that capitalism was good for the poor."
You obviously do not know nothing about the world in which he lived. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 02 Feb 2012 07:56 PM |
Another excerpt:
This of course brings up the “who will do the dirty jobs?” question—one which always gets thrown at anarchists or other utopians. Peter Kropotkin long ago pointed out the fallacy of the argument. There’s no particular reason dirty jobs have to exist. If one divided up the unpleasant tasks equally, that would mean all the world’s top scientists and engineers would have to do them too; one could expect the creation of self-cleaning kitchens and coal-mining robots almost immediately.
___ Unbelievable genious! |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
pepper0
|
  |
| Joined: 01 Sep 2007 |
| Total Posts: 12032 |
|
|
| 02 Feb 2012 07:58 PM |
"We have been able to live without a government."
Since when?
The most prosperous people that have ever lived has had a government. A constitution that establishes the rights of the people, and elected member of a legislature can represent both the majority and minorities equally. Therefore a republic, being the best form of government and is the only one successful. It is working for the following countries (including constitutional monarchies that have its monarch as a figurehead);
Iceland Ireland Switzerland United States Denmark Canada Costa Rica South Korea Sweden Mauritius Belgium Austria New Zealand Australia Norway Finland Germany Malta Czech republic Netherlands Luxembourg Japan Spain United Kingdom France Cape Verde Greece Slovenia South Africa Cape Verde Italy Chile Estonia Israel Taiwan Portugal Lithuania India Slovakia Poland Jamaica Hungary Brazil Cyprus Botswana Panama Mexico Argentina Croatia Trinidad and Tobago Latvia
The rest are just clear flat out authoritarian regimes that just use the word 'republic' for name purposes only.
|
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
DrCaneJr
|
  |
| Joined: 26 Dec 2011 |
| Total Posts: 4970 |
|
|
| 02 Feb 2012 08:00 PM |
| The thing I find funny is that almost all of these places are failing terribly. Anarchy has existed in many countries. Libya, Egypt (was an anarchy), Somalia, etc. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 02 Feb 2012 08:02 PM |
http://www.roblox.com/Forum/ShowPost.aspx?PostID=62190878 There I talked about prosperity.
P.S: I feel offended that you mentioned Argentina but not Uruguay. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
pepper0
|
  |
| Joined: 01 Sep 2007 |
| Total Posts: 12032 |
|
|
| 02 Feb 2012 08:12 PM |
There is only chaos, no order. Death and suffering is all over Libya and Egypt and the countries in the Arab Spring
These people dont even know how to make a perfect transition from Dictatorship to freedom.
Anarchy = highway to new dictatorship, not freedom
|
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 02 Feb 2012 08:13 PM |
"Marx the revolutionary was an idiot who didn't realize that capitalism was good for the poor."
You obviously do not know nothing about the world in which he lived. ________________
As always, you make an excellent point. I should have considered the historical perspective more, although Engles did have enough perspective to realize that Marx could be wrong.
In either case, my hyperbole wasn't warranted. While I do know something about the time in which he lived, I certainly didn't apply that knowledge.
|
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 02 Feb 2012 08:14 PM |
"Anarchy = highway to new dictatorship, not freedom"
I'm not even going to bother. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
DrCaneJr
|
  |
| Joined: 26 Dec 2011 |
| Total Posts: 4970 |
|
|
| 02 Feb 2012 08:15 PM |
Oh please, don't pretend that government doesn't want more power. Look at the difference in the USA from The 1800's to now. It's disgusting.
Government = Tyrants and oppression, not protections.
Those who are willing to give up freedom for security deserve neither. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|