I see this point and raise you another one. If you look into communism, where it was implemented into the various countries, you will see a fad in the leaders who put communism into said countries. They changed the ideals, even just by a little bit, to make their own way of it. This, to me, is why it never worked. If one were to keep communism's set guidelines (I guess that's the only word to really use there) as Karl Marx had written, I think that it would work, because it would be the equality of everyone which is what most people want, isn't it? Aside from the extremely competitive... but they can just move to a different place if they don't want in.

My roommate in college and I had a big debate about communism, which led to me saying that I was going to become a communist just to prove her wrong and her saying that she was going to stab me in my sleep. Neither of which came true, but it was a great debate.

---
Okay, Lindsay, are you forgetting that I was a professional twice over - an analyst and a therapist. The world's first analrapist.

I see this point and raise you another one. If you look into communism, where it was implemented into the various countries, you will see a fad in the leaders who put communism into said countries. They changed the ideals, even just by a little bit, to make their own way of it. This, to me, is why it never worked. If one were to keep communism's set guidelines (I guess that's the only word to really use there) as Karl Marx had written, I think that it would work, because it would be the equality of everyone which is what most people want, isn't it? Aside from the extremely competitive... but they can just move to a different place if they don't want in.

Yes. It would have been good if Stalin and Trotsky could have settled their differences and ruled the USSR as part of a Committee. But radical political ideas tend to attract radical thinkers, who don't tend to work well in teams, and who have a habit of ice-picking their opponents to death.

Also, the extremely competetive became part of the Underground and Black Market in Russia. Now they are part of the oligarchies and organised crime syndicates. The same people exist in the West - they are the insider dealers, scamers, spammers and drug lords. Wherever there exists a profit, an advantage, a competetive edge, someone, somehwere will do what it takes to seek it out, no matter how depraved/ingenious. It's a sad fact that the most competetive, not the most able, gain power, because they seek it, because they're made that way. This is Genetics.

On the point of criminals or if you prefer, people who disagree with Society, unless you physically hunt down these unscrupulous bastards, or, even better, if you really want rid of them, make it unprofitable for them to live in the country, you won't be rid of them. And, in order to do this, you need to take some pretty drastic action. Which leads us back to Point A: Crazy dictators running the Communist Countries and doing crazy things.

quote:

---

My roommate in college and I had a big debate about communism, which led to me saying that I was going to become a communist just to prove her wrong and her saying that she was going to stab me in my sleep. Neither of which came true, but it was a great debate.

---

quote:

---

Yes. It would have been good if Stalin and Trotsky could have settled their differences and ruled the USSR as part of a Committee. But radical political ideas tend to attract radical thinkers, who don't tend to work well in teams, and who have a habit of ice-picking their opponents to death.

---

OK, so I was detouring from your point about communism and getting into genetics and stuff. Back to politics:

I liked what you said about anarchy, kitty.

In its most benign form, anarchy is the ultimate form of rule - no government. Again, this allows ultimate freedom, but relies too much on people wanting to co-operate. Anarchy is often misinterpreted as "anti-government" and most "anarchists" you'll see on TV are violent wankers who have a grudge against authority. Rather, it's an alternative to government.

It only works in small groups (eg. Alex Garland's "The Beach" illustrated a benign anarchy) or where communications and/or distance make centralised government impossible - my favourite sci-fi author, Iain M. Banks, makes great use of this in his novels where he argues that in space, over huge distances, central government is impossible, so people should just do whatever the hell they want without any form of centralised government, behaviour being dictated by local social norms. But, of course, in his books, all the people have super-intelligent spaceships to look after them, and are so advanced that they want for virtually nothing and spend all day shagging each other and getting high...

I ought to look up some papers on benign anarchy.

As far as communism goes, I just don't think it can work on a large scale. If I have time I'll have a look as to why communism has survived in Cuba when it got so massively rejected in Russia and Eastern Europe.

It can work on a small scale, or in a diluted form (our aikido club is run very much on socialist principles, not that we sing Red Flag or anything daft like that, but we all pay the same for accomodation, food and beer when we go on holiday at Easter, and everyone gets equal treatment - and it works out cheaper somehow when we all club together)

You're right when you say that the government doesn't always listen to what we say. No form of government is perfect.

I'm glad your brain is hurting - I've got the urge to do some background reading on anarchism and communism now. This kind of stuff *is* exciting. Hell - I bet I would have got a much better class of degree if I had had this kind of serious level of discussion on my subject. Maybe when I've not spent 12 hours at an airport waiting for a non-existant flight, I'll come back with some source material and references for you.

PS - I haven't had a shower in 3 months, but only because I only have a bath in the flat ;-)

---
Please replace the handset, and try again.

If you're interested in discussions of Anarchy as a feasible form of government, Ursula LeGuin's "The Dispossessed" is something you should read.

---
Absorbed directly through the skin.

What that book describes that calls itself anarchy, but it seems to me more like an idealized version of communism than any true anarchy.

---
ken.kaufman@gmail.com

The Disposessed is actually about the practical use of communism in modern government. It is based in communism, not anarchy.

Give kaufman his props for pointing that out.

---
The giant three-phallused phallus of Uzbekistan will one day squirt the cosmic jizz of revenge all over Canada.

Hey, is kitty coming back to this thread, or is she all fighted out?

---
Please replace the handset, and try again.

Sorry, jes... Gathering thoughts, buying stuff, pretending to not have any money left so I don't pay my aunt... etc, etc.

Anyway, I was just thinking back to my English Lit class in Uni (one that I actually continually went to!!) We read Thomas More's Utopia, which is, basically, the absence of a true government. One could say that an anarchaic (I don't think that's a word, but hey, it works) society is the same as a Utopian society, could they not? Which, therefore, could go to say that a communist society (we're looking at fundamentals here...) also equals Utopian society.

Where am I going with this? I can't really remember anymore. But, ... Okay, no, the thought is gone.

Jes, that is a good question though, why communism worked in Cuba but went ass-up in Europe. I'd like to come up with something for that, but I'm too excited for other stuff right now to think properly. Give me a day or so and I'll come up with something, I promise.

Anyway, like I said before, I'm just happy that I sparked an interest in looking up stuff. I actually went on my own and looked up stuff on communism... Got the 10 "basic" ideals of it... And maybe I'm not all for commie's like I used to be. Its fucked up.

---
Okay, Lindsay, are you forgetting that I was a professional twice over - an analyst and a therapist. The world's first analrapist.