Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 p_gray99 wrote:
*sigh*

What people are arguing:
"Communism was attempted in the past, but it failed, therefore it will always fail."

What I am arguing:
"Communism has failed in the past because certain things were wrong e.g. having a corrupt government. As soon as we can sort these things out communism could work."

People who think they're arguing against my point haven't actually supplied a valid reason yet. Until then, I'm going to quite happily tell people that in the future communism could work, and I'd like to see a reason why it shouldn't.

Sorry pal. If a bunch of countries attempted it, and failed, then you say well they weren't pure commies, then thats a leading indicator your theory is absolute horshit BECAUSE IT CAN'T WORK IN THE REAL WORLD.

Your theory is crap anywhere outside of heaven or an ant colony. Come on back to reality now hothouse flower boy.

 Frazzled wrote:
Sorry pal. If a bunch of countries attempted it, and failed, then you say well they weren't pure commies, then thats a leading indicator your theory is absolute gak BECAUSE IT CAN'T WORK IN THE REAL WORLD.

Your theory is gak anywhere outside of heaven or an ant colony. Come on back to reality now hothouse flower boy.

Uh... no.
Firstly, I recommend you start using logic rather than simply flaming posts because they're pro-communist.

Secondly, I've pointed out the failings in the past attempts at communism and said, "If we tried communism without these problems, it would work." What you've done is stuck your fingers in your ears and said "I don't like it so it's not true."

On the other hand, please keep flaming. I'm sending them all down to RedS8n, and I believe it's making his life a whole load easier, what with the shortage of oil that we're going to endure in less than a century's time

 djones520 wrote:
When will the basic human nature of wanting more be overcome? I think it could easily be argued that it's hard coded into us. An evolutionary tool we gained to help us survive.

As long as we have that, Communism will never work. So, Communism will never work.

I can't say that it will ever happen, and certainly not when. If it does ever happen, then great, communism here we come! And surely slavery (getting someone else to do the work for us) is hard-wired into human nature? Perhaps less so, but eating meat certainly is and there's a reasonable amount of vegetarians out there.

As for communism not working if we want stuff, that's probably true. It's possible we could educate people enough that they change their thoughts to "wanting loads for the whole of humanity" rather than "wanting loads for me and my family", perhaps through simply spreading out what they see as their family and friends until it becomes natural to see everyone as a friend? I certainly don't know. I'm not in a position to predict the future. But it's possible that communism will be viable in the future (even if it is, as you believe, unlikely).

Secondly, I've pointed out the failings in the past attempts at communism and said, "If we tried communism without these problems, it would work." What you've done is stuck your fingers in your ears and said "I don't like it so it's not true."

Sorry, when your argument is "communism would work fine if it weren't for all the people" that means your theory doesn't work. Saying we're not logical for pointing this out is...interesting.

Yes, please send everything to Reddy. I still owe him a trip to Oasis when he comes to Austin, and maybe this will spur him on to show up (before it gets hot). I'll take him to a shooting competition and turn him into a right good queso eating Texan in no time. Then the circle will be complete.

 Frazzled wrote:
Sorry, when your argument is "communism would work fine if it weren't for all the people" that means your theory doesn't work. Saying we're not logical for pointing this out is...interesting.

Yes, please send everything to Reddy. I still owe him a trip to Oasis when he comes to Austin, and maybe this will spur him on to show up (before it gets hot). I'll take him to a shooting competition and turn him into a right good queso eating Texan in no time. Then the circle will be complete.

I'm not arguing that it would be fine if it weren't for all the people! I've written about how to make it work, by having a government that's extremely difficult to corrupt or keep power for long, whether it be some kind of democracy or having a computer in charge.
I've also written about how it could work once we don't need any more technological advancements, or if human nature changes a little as it has done in the past.

I am putting forwards multiple ways by which we could get round the problems of communism, which for some reason you seem not to have seen.

I'm not arguing that it would be fine if it weren't for all the people! I've written about how to make it work, by having a government that's extremely difficult to corrupt or keep power for long, whether it be some kind of democracy or having a computer in charge.
I've also written about how it could work once we don't need any more technological advancements, or if human nature changes a little as it has done in the past.

I am putting forwards multiple ways by which we could get round the problems of communism, which for some reason you seem not to have seen.

Because they are stupid. If unicorns land and take everyone to lala land (located 37 miles East of Oklahoma) that might work too. But in the real world you’re not going to have a government that’s difficult to corrupt. Again, anything made up of something incredibly flawed is going to itself be flawed. If your theory requires a perfect government then your theory lacks merit.

Having a computer in charge? 1. Why do you think that would make things better? 2. A sentient computer might have a mind all its own. I bet this might be the subject for an excellent movie.

I've also written about how it could work once we don't need any more technological advancements, or if human nature changes a little as it has done in the past.

Again any theory that requires the end of science, or changing human nature itself, is a theory utterly without merit.

 p_gray99 wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Sorry, when your argument is "communism would work fine if it weren't for all the people" that means your theory doesn't work. Saying we're not logical for pointing this out is...interesting.

Yes, please send everything to Reddy. I still owe him a trip to Oasis when he comes to Austin, and maybe this will spur him on to show up (before it gets hot). I'll take him to a shooting competition and turn him into a right good queso eating Texan in no time. Then the circle will be complete.

I'm not arguing that it would be fine if it weren't for all the people! I've written about how to make it work, by having a government that's extremely difficult to corrupt or keep power for long, whether it be some kind of democracy or having a computer in charge.
I've also written about how it could work once we don't need any more technological advancements, or if human nature changes a little as it has done in the past.

I am putting forwards multiple ways by which we could get round the problems of communism, which for some reason you seem not to have seen.

Your suggestion sounded suspiciously like "education camps" to teach people how to accept it.

I wonder why people would be resistant to that...

Frazzled wrote:Because they are stupid. If unicorns land and take everyone to lala land (located 37 miles East of Oklahoma) that might work too. But in the real world you’re not going to have a government that’s difficult to corrupt. Again, anything made up of something incredibly flawed is going to itself be flawed. If your theory requires a perfect government then your theory lacks merit.

Having a computer in charge? 1. Why do you think that would make things better? 2. A sentient computer might have a mind all its own. I bet this might be the subject for an excellent movie.

Spoiler:

So you're saying "we've never done it before, so it'll never happen." I, on the other hand, will point you towards the fact that some governments are incredibly close to incorrupt (e.g. Denmark, Finland, New Zealand...) and it's only improving over the long-term. If you're right and what's happened in the past will continue to happen, then soon we'll have countries that are negatively corrupt!
And who says that a computer needs sentience to be able to function well? Unless we allowed it to program itself (not a good idea), then greed would have to be programmed in, which it wouldn't be (so long as we knew we could trust the programmers). Problems? Of course, but it's still a possibility.

I've also written about how it could work once we don't need any more technological advancements, or if human nature changes a little as it has done in the past.

Again any theory that requires the end of science, or changing human nature itself, is a theory utterly without merit.

Why? I'm extremely interested in science, and I'm looking to study physics at university, but I don't see why we need to continue advancing. As soon as we're happy with where we are and we're in a stable position, why should we advance? There'd be no need for it!

djones520 wrote:

 p_gray99 wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Sorry, when your argument is "communism would work fine if it weren't for all the people" that means your theory doesn't work. Saying we're not logical for pointing this out is...interesting.

Yes, please send everything to Reddy. I still owe him a trip to Oasis when he comes to Austin, and maybe this will spur him on to show up (before it gets hot). I'll take him to a shooting competition and turn him into a right good queso eating Texan in no time. Then the circle will be complete.

I'm not arguing that it would be fine if it weren't for all the people! I've written about how to make it work, by having a government that's extremely difficult to corrupt or keep power for long, whether it be some kind of democracy or having a computer in charge.
I've also written about how it could work once we don't need any more technological advancements, or if human nature changes a little as it has done in the past.

I am putting forwards multiple ways by which we could get round the problems of communism, which for some reason you seem not to have seen.

Your suggestion sounded suspiciously like "education camps" to teach people how to accept it.

I wonder why people would be resistant to that...

I never said I wanted "education camps," I didn't intend to suggest it and I certainly don't think we should have "education camps". In fact I explained how such a society could come about on its own, and about how it wouldn't be needed if we also didn't need technological advancements. It's something to be thought about if a communist society is ever created, but I don't think it's particularly relevant to the current dialogue.

To get rid of greed or lazyness you have to change humanity on a genetic level.

If you have to do that, your theory doesn't work.

After all, if you can change man at a genetic level to be more amenable to it, any theory would work.

I agree that it's impossible to get rid of greed or laziness as far as we know without tampering with genetics. However, it's certainly possible to make it so culturally unacceptable to be greedy that people won't be, just like people nowadays pretend that they don't want a slave to do everything for them, or that they don't want to go to a gladiator pit to see humans being chopped into bear food.

 p_gray99 wrote:
I agree that it's impossible to get rid of greed or laziness as far as we know without tampering with genetics. However, it's certainly possible to make it so culturally unacceptable to be greedy that people won't be, just like people nowadays pretend that they don't want a slave to do everything for them, or that they don't want to go to a gladiator pit to see humans being chopped into bear food.

No its not possible. Its human nature. The only way to make it culturally unacceptable is that whole gulag thing. Of course the people creating the gulag will themselves be the ones more equal than others. Oh look thats what happened in the USSR already...

 Frazzled wrote:

Sorry pal. If a bunch of countries attempted it, and failed, then you say well they weren't pure commies, then thats a leading indicator your theory is absolute horshit BECAUSE IT CAN'T WORK IN THE REAL WORLD.

Sorry chap, but it's never been tried anywhere. If you say you tried foie gras the assumption is that you had some on your plate, not that you were fattening up a duck but it ran away.

To get rid of greed or lazyness you have to change humanity on a genetic level.

Greed is not a genetic trait, rather it is something we are socialised to. If we have a genetic trait toward anything regarding this, it is fairness and cooperation.

You clearly don't have children nor ever been around them. Humans are greedy the moment they can walk, grab something, and declare it theirs.

Its not just humans. Dogs are the same way. Alpha dog gets the best. Everyone else gets the rest.

As for saying its not been tried, but you close your eyes to all the countries that did try that. Wishing it away screaming no true Scotsman doesn't make it go away.

 Frazzled wrote:
You clearly don't have children nor ever been around them. Humans are greedy the moment they can walk, grab something, and declare it theirs.

Its not just humans. Dogs are the same way. Alpha dog gets the best. Everyone else gets the rest.

As for saying its not been tried, but you close your eyes to all the countries that did try that. Wishing it away screaming no true Scotsman doesn't make it go away.

I really don't think citing dog packs supports your argument when they are a form of cooperative society. Humans may well be greedy by the time they can walk but that is a year or so in, more than enough time to learn behaviours, hell they are often learning complex behaviours like language by that point.

Which countries have tried communism? Here's a clue, its not Russia or China (totalitarian socialists).

See, I can post youtube videos about monkeys as well.... however this one shows that there are round about ways to show greed in just about any animal.

 dæl wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
You clearly don't have children nor ever been around them. Humans are greedy the moment they can walk, grab something, and declare it theirs.

Its not just humans. Dogs are the same way. Alpha dog gets the best. Everyone else gets the rest.

As for saying its not been tried, but you close your eyes to all the countries that did try that. Wishing it away screaming no true Scotsman doesn't make it go away.

I really don't think citing dog packs supports your argument when they are a form of cooperative society. Humans may well be greedy by the time they can walk but that is a year or so in, more than enough time to learn behaviours, hell they are often learning complex behaviours like language by that point.

Which countries have tried communism? Here's a clue, its not Russia or China (totalitarian socialists).

Which pack predator doesn't operate like that?

Don't forget, when you get down to it, that is all we are. Pack predators.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

See, I can post youtube videos about monkeys as well.... however this one shows that there are round about ways to show greed in just about any animal.

So you post something from the same study. What is your point? Because all that study shows is how monkeys have an intrinsic sense of fairness.

Cooperation and reciprocal altruism is common to pretty much every animal on the planet, so maybe in creating a society built on competitiveness it might be us that is in the wrong.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 djones520 wrote:


Which pack predator doesn't operate like that?

Don't forget, when you get down to it, that is all we are. Pack predators.

Like what? Like dogs and cooperatively, or like us and competitively?

 dæl wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
You clearly don't have children nor ever been around them. Humans are greedy the moment they can walk, grab something, and declare it theirs.

Its not just humans. Dogs are the same way. Alpha dog gets the best. Everyone else gets the rest.

As for saying its not been tried, but you close your eyes to all the countries that did try that. Wishing it away screaming no true Scotsman doesn't make it go away.

I really don't think citing dog packs supports your argument when they are a form of cooperative society. Humans may well be greedy by the time they can walk but that is a year or so in, more than enough time to learn behaviours, hell they are often learning complex behaviours like language by that point.

Which countries have tried communism? Here's a clue, its not Russia or China (totalitarian socialists).

Let me guess, you haven't left high school yet as well?

Children will have a concept of possession long before they start to learn to communicate, only someone that has never been around young children doesn't understand this.

I'll repeat it again for the cheap seats, almost 30% of the countries in the world had some form of communist government during the 80's, they all failed... Trying to pretend that this isn't true by yelling "no true Scotsman" at the top of your lungs doesn't make it any less a fact. Just because something isn't 100% equal to the ideals of Marx, doesn't mean that it wasn't a form of communism.

Communism, like capitalism, in their purest forms are utopias that will never be accomplished, that doesn't mean that we can't say that we all live in capitalist societies, because even though we've modified the capitalist theory to suit our needs, the roots to our system are still capitalist much as the roots to all those failed governments were still communist and as such they can be called communist countries.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 dæl wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

See, I can post youtube videos about monkeys as well.... however this one shows that there are round about ways to show greed in just about any animal.

So you post something from the same study. What is your point? Because all that study shows is how monkeys have an intrinsic sense of fairness.

Cooperation and reciprocal altruism is common to pretty much every animal on the planet, so maybe in creating a society built on competitiveness it might be us that is in the wrong.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 djones520 wrote:


Which pack predator doesn't operate like that?

Don't forget, when you get down to it, that is all we are. Pack predators.

Like what? Like dogs and cooperatively, or like us and competitively?

Really?

You don't know that EVERY single pack animal species in the entire planet will have one or more pack leaders that will have the "lions" share of everything, from food to breeding rights?

You don't call that a competitive system?

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:







See, I can post youtube videos about monkeys as well.... however this one shows that there are round about ways to show greed in just about any animal.

NOOOOOOOOOO NOT THE MONKEYS!!! WON"T SOMEONE THINK OF THE CHILDREN?!?!?!?!??!



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 dæl wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

See, I can post youtube videos about monkeys as well.... however this one shows that there are round about ways to show greed in just about any animal.

So you post something from the same study. What is your point? Because all that study shows is how monkeys have an intrinsic sense of fairness.

Cooperation and reciprocal altruism is common to pretty much every animal on the planet, so maybe in creating a society built on competitiveness it might be us that is in the wrong.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 djones520 wrote:


Which pack predator doesn't operate like that?

Don't forget, when you get down to it, that is all we are. Pack predators.

Like what? Like dogs and cooperatively, or like us and competitively?

Dogs are cooperative only against larger prey, and only then until the prey is down. Otherwise they are competitive, just like wolves, hyenas, and lions.

Really?

You don't know that EVERY single pack animal species in the entire planet will have one or more pack leaders that will have the "lions" share of everything, from food to breeding rights?

You don't call that a competitive system?

Indeed, thats where the phrase "top dog" comes from.

PhantomViper wrote:

Let me guess, you haven't left high school yet as well?

Is there really any need for that? Still, I will answer, yes I left high school many years ago and am currently engaged in a degree in politics and social science.

Children will have a concept of possession long before they start to learn to communicate, only someone that has never been around young children doesn't understand this.

Citation needed.

I'll repeat it again for the cheap seats, almost 30% of the countries in the world had some form of communist government during the 80's, they all failed... Trying to pretend that this isn't true by yelling "no true Scotsman" at the top of your lungs doesn't make it any less a fact. Just because something isn't 100% equal to the ideals of Marx, doesn't mean that it wasn't a form of communism.

I will repeat again, there has never been a single instance of communism in the modern world. "Communist government" is an oxymoron. It's not a 'no true scotsman' claim when there weren't any scots. Show me a single case of communism in the 20th Century.

Is there really any need for that? Still, I will answer, yes I left high school many years ago and am currently engaged in a degree in politics and social science.

Don’t plan on working for a an honest living then eh?

Children will have a concept of possession long before they start to learn to communicate, only someone that has never been around young children doesn't understand this.


Citation needed.

Parenthood

I'll repeat it again for the cheap seats, almost 30% of the countries in the world had some form of communist government during the 80's, they all failed... Trying to pretend that this isn't true by yelling "no true Scotsman" at the top of your lungs doesn't make it any less a fact. Just because something isn't 100% equal to the ideals of Marx, doesn't mean that it wasn't a form of communism.


I will repeat again, there has never been a single instance of communism in the modern world. "Communist government" is an oxymoron. It's not a 'no true scotsman' claim when there weren't any scots. Show me a single case of communism in the 20th Century.

All of them. Your belief that there is no government in communism again beggars belief. But if we go with your point then you have to admit that, it can’t happen, because it can’t be made to happen.

I mean you're arguing communism only exists when there is no government, but every system has govenrment. Even something "run by computers" is still government. If your theoretical assumption requires something that by the laws of physics can't exist, then by its nature its flawed.

 dæl wrote:

Children will have a concept of possession long before they start to learn to communicate, only someone that has never been around young children doesn't understand this.

Citation needed.

Really? So you've never been around a baby before...

Well, here you go then:

In relation to
possession, infants by 2 months manifest the sense of their own agency onto things. They
come to develop the sense that they possess the perceptual effects of their own embodied
actions. They show awareness of an ownership of the effect of their own actions. At this
2nd Level, the feeling of agency over people and things dominates the child’s sense of
possession

From here: Possession and morality in early development

I will repeat again, there has never been a single instance of communism in the modern world. "Communist government" is an oxymoron. It's not a 'no true scotsman' claim when there weren't any scots. Show me a single case of communism in the 20th Century.

That is the textbook definition of a "no true scotsman".

Frazzled wrote:

Is there really any need for that? Still, I will answer, yes I left high school many years ago and am currently engaged in a degree in politics and social science.

Don’t plan on working for a an honest living then eh?

God no, far easier to corruptly syphon off the fruit of others labours.

I mean you're arguing communism only exists when there is no government, but every system has govenrment. Even something "run by computers" is still government. If your theoretical assumption requires something that by the laws of physics can't exist, then by its nature its flawed.

It's not faster than light travel, it's collective ownership, which is really quite possible. Alaska for instance has a scheme whereby it's citizens are paid a dividend for the oil extracted, just that one scheme is far more communist than anything done by the likes of Stalin or Mao.

PhantomViper wrote:

In relation to
possession, infants by 2 months manifest the sense of their own agency onto things. They
come to develop the sense that they possess the perceptual effects of their own embodied
actions. They show awareness of an ownership of the effect of their own actions. At this
2nd Level, the feeling of agency over people and things dominates the child’s sense of
possession

From here: Possession and morality in early development

What's interesting is how that works with societies which had no concept of ownership, such as the native americans.

That is the textbook definition of a "no true scotsman".

No it's not, if I'd made a claim such as "socialism has worked" and someone had shown that Russia failed, then I'd posited that Russia wasn't true socialism then fair enough. But I'm not making any claim of things working, I am claiming things have never been tried. See the difference?

You cannot claim that the people of Russia had collective ownership of the resources and work there, because they demonstrably didn't, the ownership was held by the state, which is textbook socialism.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Albatross wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

governments of many countries in Africa from developing. All it would take would be one action from the US government to stop millions of deaths due to starvation. And the reason you don't want to slow the interest is, you guessed it, CAPITALISM!!!

We lost 18 in Somalia trying to keep people from using food as a weapon. Where the were you lover boy?

Where the feth were you, Frazzled? You sure as gak weren't in one of the Blackhawks. Better men than you lost or risked their lives in that conflict, so how about not claiming credit for their sacrifice, eh?


Just a thought.

I'm not the one claiming the US needs to do more Hondo. Keep up kemosabe.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 strybjorn Grimskull wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

p_gray99 wrote:I'm not talking about which is least likely to cause corruption, I'm talking about which system would exist in an ideal world, which would almost certainly be communism or very close to this, as it causes greatest happiness for the greatest number.

Millions of people killed by Stalin, thrown in Gulags, killed by Mao, etc. etc. just called, they'd love to have a nice chat with you about how happy they were with their communist systems.

strybjorn Grimskull wrote:
THERE HAS BEEN TO COMMUNIST COUNTRY'S EVER.

it's *two

Vietnam, USSR, China, Democratic People's republic of Congo, DPRK (N. Korea)


yep... seems like more than 2 countries on that list that were/are definitely communists.

As many have pointed out, with the human condition being what it is, and probably always will be, communism has never, and will never work. Another way it would work, is if we were all implanted with a micro chip at birth, and received all our education, and directions from the Hive.. but that wouldn't end well now would it?

My apologies i ment to put NO communist countries.

Vietnam-dictatorshipo
USSR-almost but Stalin came along
China-trying but failing (possibly socialist)
DMRC-dictatorship
N Korea-fascist


(i have since updated my comment)

Hungary
Poland
Romania
East Germany
Yugoslavia
Cambodia
Laos
Nicaragua
Cuba

Ah... all these countries are Socialist, not Communist.

It's not faster than light travel, it's collective ownership, which is really quite possible. Alaska for instance has a scheme whereby it's citizens are paid a dividend for the oil extracted, just that one scheme is far more communist than anything done by the likes of Stalin or Mao.

Really? That’s more communist than the government owning all the means of production? Wait, that can’t be communist because there’s government involved.

 Frazzled wrote:

It's not faster than light travel, it's collective ownership, which is really quite possible. Alaska for instance has a scheme whereby it's citizens are paid a dividend for the oil extracted, just that one scheme is far more communist than anything done by the likes of Stalin or Mao.

Really? That’s more communist than the government owning all the means of production? Wait, that can’t be communist because there’s government involved.

Yes, putting the ownership of the natural resources in the hands of the citizens is more communist than the state owning the means of production, which is socialist. It's not actual communism, but it is closer than to it than state ownership is.

 Frazzled wrote:
(Heavy snippage ensues to reduce the text pyramid)

Ok flapjack, please define communism.

 Vulcan wrote:
A COMMUNIST nation is one where the people as a whole - NOT the government - control the means of production. Imagine, say, a country where every person has shares in every company, and (unlike in America) are kept fully informed by the company as to what they are doing so that when the people vote their shares it MEANS something.

Do try paying attention.

 dæl wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

It's not faster than light travel, it's collective ownership, which is really quite possible. Alaska for instance has a scheme whereby it's citizens are paid a dividend for the oil extracted, just that one scheme is far more communist than anything done by the likes of Stalin or Mao.

Really? That’s more communist than the government owning all the means of production? Wait, that can’t be communist because there’s government involved.

Yes, putting the ownership of the natural resources in the hands of the citizens is more communist than the state owning the means of production, which is socialist. It's not actual communism, but it is closer than to it than state ownership is.

Wait what? If thats the case there have been lots of communist countries. You've effectively said all those evil running dog capitalists are communist states. I guess communism does work.

However, you've chosen the wrong example. The State of Alaska owns the oil NOT the citizens.

 Vulcan wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
(Heavy snippage ensues to reduce the text pyramid)

Ok flapjack, please define communism.

 Vulcan wrote:
A COMMUNIST nation is one where the people as a whole - NOT the government - control the means of production. Imagine, say, a country where every person has shares in every company, and (unlike in America) are kept fully informed by the company as to what they are doing so that when the people vote their shares it MEANS something.

Do try paying attention.

Under Marx a true communist society wouldn't have either a government or even a state, so according to Marx a Communist Country is an oxymoron as well.

Do try to pay attention to your own points.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 dæl wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:

In relation to
possession, infants by 2 months manifest the sense of their own agency onto things. They
come to develop the sense that they possess the perceptual effects of their own embodied
actions. They show awareness of an ownership of the effect of their own actions. At this
2nd Level, the feeling of agency over people and things dominates the child’s sense of
possession

From here: Possession and morality in early development

What's interesting is how that works with societies which had no concept of ownership, such as the native americans.

Citation needed.

 Vulcan wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
(Heavy snippage ensues to reduce the text pyramid)

Ok flapjack, please define communism.

 Vulcan wrote:
A COMMUNIST nation is one where the people as a whole - NOT the government - control the means of production. Imagine, say, a country where every person has shares in every company, and (unlike in America) are kept fully informed by the company as to what they are doing so that when the people vote their shares it MEANS something.

Do try paying attention.

East Germany and the USSR tried that when they were breaking up (giving shares to their workers). It didn't work.
It did however help create the current Oligarch system that RUssia has.
As you note, try to pay attention.

 Frazzled wrote:

Wait what? If thats the case there have been lots of communist countries. You've effectively said all those evil running dog capitalists are communist states. I guess communism does work.

However, you've chosen the wrong example. The State of Alaska owns the oil NOT the citizens.

Where are these communist countries then?

Also...

The Alaska state constitution claims common heritage rights of ownership of oil and other minerals for the people of the state as a whole.