<p>i’m not educated enough to take part in this communism discussion, but I was wondering where North Korea comes into this?
If the USSR and China aren’t true communist nations, and you emphasize the benefits of communism through the example of Cuba, what about N.Korea?</p>
<p>[No</a> true Scotsman - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia](<a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman]No”>No true Scotsman - Wikipedia)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Thats great! Congrats, that is the goal of my current plan but I know things change. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No it isnt, my intention was to dispel the idea that capitalism is ever lasting. So long as a system is designed to inherently exploit and oppress a majority of the people to exist, it will eventually fall. History attests to this.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I offer this response to your idea of human nature. Please take the time to read this, it is a great assesement and deserves your eyes and mind.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Say that to the BILLIONS of people living in **** holes with no dreams, with no opportunities, subjected to life in a factory working for cents an hour. Say that to the millions of farmers who cant sell their produce because of the market control of a few major farms that exploit hundreds of thousands of people to be able to sell their produce at levels that drive the smaller, majority farmers out of business and eventually to a life of poverty and pain. </p>
<p>Maybe in Western nations a good number of people live decently, but that is because the rich in the Western nations trickle a little wealth down to the people in order to only keep them happy so they dont revolt but that wealth is created off the backs of BILLIONS of workers across the world.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>We do not want to “forgo” modern medicine but rather propel it to knew levels under the idea of cooperation, not greed. </p>
<p>What do you mean by “(as you somehow implied)” What are you trying to say?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It is not about being less crazy, it is about the masses gaining class-consciousness. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You may have been able to explain the principles of buying and selling to them but they wouldnt have been able to do ANYTHING about it because the economic conditions were not in place to transform the mode of production from feudalism into capitalism, only when the economic conditions are in place can the change truly occur. This idea ties into ehoss’s analysis that their must certain economic conditions (fully industrialized etc.) in place in order to have a successful revolution and the set up of socialism then eventually communism.</p>
<p>It is not a “slight modification” it is an entire new mode of production and distribution!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Our position is the complete opposite of that, we in no way want to downgrade “science and technology” we will propel them to new heights! We recognize the necessity of a full capitalist society, we want to move forward from a capitalist society to a communist society not back to primitive life. We will use the “large structures” (industrialized structures) of capitalism not for the exploitation it is used for in today’s age but improve them, not for the benefit of a few which is apparent today, but rather for the benefit of ALL!</p>
<p>Yes I do believe that man can live in a communist society, much better then the horrid system of capitalism.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It is the benefits of socialism, not communism in Cuba. </p>
<p>North Korea is not a friend of the left. They official ideology of the DPRK is Juche, which revolves around the ideal of “man being the master of all things” It is really authoritative state capitalism. But it isnt just merely an authoritative capitalist state, it has also been twisted with a mix of myths and religion to create a kind of cult around Kim. Disgusting to be quite honest.</p>
<p>Honestly, this has reached a point where your rhetoric becomes more than slightly disturbing-- both for its zealotry and readily apparent logical inconsistency. </p>
<p>
This last sentence emphasizes the tone of your argument so far-- one of belief. </p>
<p>
Do you see that this is fluff with no semblance of a rational anchor to keep it (and you) grounded to reality?</p>
<p>
This paragraph is based on false assumptions. There was a monetary system in the middle ages of europe (please not that europe is not the world, and therefore feudalism did not exist everywhere). It’s not as if everything was borne on the backs of serfs without buying or selling (how did the peasants get their shoes I wonder, or how did they pay the church)</p>
<p>
Revolution??? Since when has any permanent economic change revolution. Is this a bit extreme, and especially to set up asocialism that already exists in nearly all of the developed nations?
I’m all ears if you care to even try to explain how this will work.</p>
<p>First you posited an idealistic marxist large-scale social structure. I pointed out my reasons for why it would be infeasible. A large society necessitates a government organization and thereby creates political inequality that eventually engenders economic inequality. You responded by giving a non-response, that essentially in the future things will be different.</p>
<p>Please, try to refrain from calling every system that you dislike “capatilist” in one sense or another. It does not follow from defining every economic system in the world as capatalist and then observing that there are problems in the world that a vague notion of capatalism creates them. In fact, as a counterargument to your claims, I would like to point out that modern economic divides are not caused by captalism in and of itself but by national exploitation and issues of national sovreignty.</p>
<p>Please try giving the roughest logical sketch of how a future society would work-- and if you say that you or I couldn’t comprehend it, then it’s irrelevant because it’s not happening in our lifespans (or even in the next 1000 years). </p>
<p>Maybe this discussion is just an elaborate prank on your part-- in which case I’m the fool here.</p>
<p>^ Thank you, Pawn. I’d bet old Dyedushka Lenin’s looking at Machiavelli’s (how ironic…) posts and saying “Score one for the communists, tavaryish!”</p>
<p>God I hate Lenin.</p>
<p>ahhhhhhhhh…this thread actually makes me rethink whether choosing Dart over Williams was a wise thing to do. 
i LOVE discussing philosophy/political science/history/international relations. Unfortunately, I don’t have time to read through all the posts, but I still press that Marxism is impossible because of human nature to compete. Marx described that the proletariat will eventually rise and take over, but then where do the proletariats go? What do they do? Will they actually make a classless society? I hardly think so. </p>
<p>CB: Lenin’s still much, much better than Stalin. 
(“Animal Farm”, anyone?) Krushchev, on the other hand, just cracks me up.</p>
<p>Machiavelli, I did not find that rather long-winded and self-important rant about “human nature” to be convincing in any real way. In fact, the statement itself is self-contradictory! It begins by criticizing the way the term “human nature” is used to apply to anything and everything that we don’t understand about humans, later claiming that there IS no “human nature”. Yet in the second to last paragraph, it states “this is not human nature”. How can you begin by saying everything is relative and then make a value-judgment based on your own stance on human values? What exactly is “human dignity”? What exactly are this author’s assumptions? An “ideological banner” indeed. At the very least, capitalism acknowledges and harnesses the natural human inclination towards competition. I see nothing wrong with that. Scarce resources and everybody wants a piece of it. However, notwithstanding environmental impact, capitalism is still the best system we have for maximizing aggregate output. There are certainly winners and losers in the system, but frankly, in your system, everybody would be a loser.</p>
<p>You also somehow make this absurd claim that only Western countries enjoy a decent standard of living, and that it’s somehow a gigantic conspiracy designed to fool the billions of poor, ignorant workers out there who produce our crap. Give me a break. Capitalism’s greatest vindication can be found in China and India. HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS in the world’s two most populous countries have been lifted out of poverty and into relatively middle-class living. Ever heard the phrase “a rising tide lifts all boats”? Why don’t YOU go and talk to some Chinese Communist Party officials and explain to them how their policies for the last 30 years have brought nothing but class oppression and regression in their country?</p>
<p>In truth, the majority of countries that are still poor and have most of their populations still impoverished exist in such a state BECAUSE they have not successfully implemented capitalism. You want to blame something for economic backwardness and exploitation? Try tribalism. Try sectarianism. Indeed, look at most any country run by a non-Weberian government dominated by narrow interests, and you’ll see this at work. But it is not because of capitalism that countries suffer. </p>
<p>Finally, once again, all of your arguments are based on this thus far impossible to prove notion that once we all gain “class consciousness”, then we’ll all be driven to excel under communism, driven to innovate, produce, and contribute. Honestly, good luck with that. A world where the idea of competition is banished and that effective management and provision of services can function in a “classless society” (whoops! I mean, the people running that end of things certainly wouldn’t constitute a “class”, would they?) is simply one that would not operate. '</p>
<p>If you graduate from Williams in four years and still honestly believe in communism as both a desirable and achievable goal, then I think the Williams education will have been wasted on you.</p>
<p><a href=“whoops!%20I%20mean,%20the%20people%20running%20that%20end%20of%20things%20certainly%20wouldn’t%20constitute%20a%20%22class%22,%20would%20they?”>quote</a>
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Exactly! Though that last bit is harsh. </p>
<p>Really Machiavelli, your arguments have been very, very dogmatic thus far.</p>
<p>EDIT: Limetime! It’s not too late~! Williams is far superior!</p>
<p>Pawn: It seems to me that you and I share a LOT of the same opinions! limetime, it isn’t too late to pick Williams!
Haha ;)</p>
<p>This communism debate is futile inasmuch as it is exclusively theoretical; the only historical examples we have of states that bore any resemblance to true communism were the collectivized, syndicalist states of Aragon and Catalonia during the Second Spanish Republic, and neither of those semi-autonomous regions survived long enough to determine whether communism was actually successful. I’m not a strict empiricist, but I do like to buttress my arguments with empirical data, something of which this debate is evidently devoid.</p>
<p>To the “Grenuoilles”:</p>
<p>Yes, we will buttress this debate, the kind that fries well and is not devoid of data. We will dismiss with the theoretical and hit with the empirical, to the satisfaction of one’s reality.</p>
<p>There is an old saying, “better RED than DEAD”. Perhaps some of you propose to live amongst us as a socialist. A determined collectivist that cannot tolerate the singular solitude as a sovereign within the STATE. Very interesting.</p>
<p>But between colleagues, such is what the world is made of, and we make ado by parting the waters as a paddler wends one’s way to Williams.</p>
<p>There used to be a term of endearment, “Commie Pinko” for that special Marxian cultist within you.</p>
<p>I guess you will bring to Williams your spirit for political engagement. Whether you will find within our grounds those who wish to spin the ball with you, I do not know. We are not a very politically active community as a whole, though there is a segment of screeching dervish fraternities here. Give it your best shot.</p>
<p>I do not know if this group falls under the Multi-Cultural Center, but it should, for within your dervish existence there must be a purpose, a cause for existence, and inside the cause, a True Human Being.</p>