Jump to content

All about socialism you wanted to know and feared to ask


 Share

Recommended Posts

I have several posts to reply to in this topic, and I'll begin with Wolfwiz's:

I must agree with TMA on this one. If communism truly does have all the answers, as it has been often claimed, then why has it not been practiced in any large form?

First of all, communism doesn't have "all the answers". It just has more answers, and better ones, than any other socio-economic system. In other words, like I've said many times before, communism isn't perfect - it is only the best system that can be achieved by human beings.

As for why it hasn't been practiced in any large form (yet), the answer should be obvious: Changing a country's economic system is no simple task. Not only do you need to convince the people to give their support for a change of system, but you also have to fight against the old ruling class, which will not give up its power and wealth easily.

Besides, going directly from capitalism to communism is nearly impossible. We have to go from capitalism to socialism, then at some point later from socialism to communism.

And do not say that the Soviet Union, Castrolite Cuba, and Maoist China -- the fact that these revolutions occured -- are evidence of people at least wanting to try communism. If it cannot be said that these nations are examples of communism's failure, then it cannot also be said that they are examples of communism's promise; did the men who lead these revolutions, with possibly the exception of the Russians, have motives faithful to the oh-so-good-and-true virtues of communist utopia? I think not; as they ran their nations like dictatorships.

Regardless of what the leaders wanted, I think it's pretty obvious that the vast majority of their rank-and-file supporters were real communists, who wanted socialism and communism, not stalinism. Keep in mind that stalinism always acted as a parasite on the communist movement, not an independent political movement in its own right (notice the contrast between stalinism and fascism: while the fascists were proud to be sworn enemies of democracy, and openly declared that dictatorship was their goal, the stalinists were compulsive liars - they always practiced the opposite of what they preached).

I am quickly beginning to think that many of communism's revolutionary ideals are more superfluous than we really think; and its supposed incompatibility with capitalism also over-inflated.

I don't think there can be any doubt that communism is incompatible with capitalism - after all, any two different economic systems are incompatible, since you can't run the same economy in two different ways at the same time. From your explanation (quoted below), I understand that you believe the goal of communism may not be entirely incompatible with capitalism, which is a different matter altogether. See my replies to the various parts of your explanation further down.

Give me a moment to explain. Claims that we must eliminate money and organized government might not really be necessary to the end-goal of communism. What is the end goal? To create a utopian society in which everyone's needs are met and in which all people are treated as equals and have equal opportunity and access to the resources of the society. Perhaps the elimination of money and government would help, but is there any process of elimination that would not cause social upheavel? Is there even any gradual process of the elimination of these institutions that exists? Short of humanity just... "doing it on its own," I think not.

Actually, the transition from socialism to communism - which involves the elimination of money and organized government - is a very smooth, gradual process which involves turning representative democracy (the foundation of the socialist government) into direct democracy.

You were probably thinking of a direct transition from capitalism to communism, which would indeed require a major social upheavel and would run a very high risk of ending in chaos rather than communism. But the transition from capitalism to socialism requires no such upheavel, and could easily be done gradually and peacefully (on the other hand, it could also be done suddenly and violently, through revolution - it all depends on the local circumstances, and I suspect each country will do it differently). Likewise, the future transition from socialism to communism can (and most likely will) be gradual and peaceful.

Perhaps, in the future, as technology advances, and the world becomes less a grouping of nations and more the connection of nations, with the national boundary slowly becoming less and less important, I think we may very well see the creations of what are viewed as universal rights... with from that, I believe that universal fulfillment of needs can occur... perhaps. I'm talking in very abstract terms at this point, but how can we be so certain that corporate entities will continue to bar the ideals of communism? They do so now; they may do so for a long time. But the standards of "human needs" are constant; food, clothing, shelter. If these things, through the advancements in technology -- which are made possible by corporate profit, not by the cobbling inventors of old -- become cheaper, and cheaper to make... it is very likely that we could see universal fulfillment of human need, through what is essentially a capitalist system.

First of all, the world is not advancing towards global peace and universal enforcement of human rights. On the contrary. The problem with our globalization is that the wrong things are being globalized - we have global capitalism, but nothing even close to a global democratic government to keep the global capitalism in check. Corporations are already more powerful than the governments of 3rd world countries, and if the present trend continues, it's only a matter of time before they become more powerful than 1st world governments as well. Needless to say, that would bring anything but universal fulfillment of human need. With no democratic governments powerful enough to oppose them, corporations would happily revert to 19th century-style laissez faire capitalism, complete with child labour, sweatshops and everything else.

If that sounds far-fetched, remember that they're doing it right now, in the 3rd world. After all, the sole purpose of corporations (and private enterprise in general) is to make a profit. Any benefits to society are just a side effect.

Corporate entities will always bar the ideals of communism because, if those ideals were achieved, the corporate entities themselves could not continue to exist. And, more importantly, their super-rich shareholders would no longer hold their current status of immense wealth and power.

As for technology helping to accomplish the goals of communism within a capitalist system, we already have the technology (and resources, for that matter) to accomplish the goals of communism right now, but, due to the way capitalism functions, that technology is not being used for the benefit of mankind. About 20 thousand people die of starvation in the world every day, although we grow enough food on the planet to feed everyone.

Indeed, to me, it seems that the only difference between capitalism and communism is that capitalism is human economic interrelations with third-party enforced rules, and communism is these interrelations without such rules or enforcement. And the evils conducted under capitalsm do not come from capitalism itself, by from abuse of the rules of capitalism performed by individuals.

I'm afraid you'll have to explain that idea in a little more detail. What do you mean by "capitalism itself" (as opposed to individuals "abusing" it)? If capitalism naturally allows X to happen, then X can't be an "abuse" of capitalism...

The "exploitation of the proletariat" often seems grossly overstated to my eyes... are not the nations who have been capitalist the longest the ones with the highest overall standard of living? Did China's standard of living not surge when it, too, engaged in capitalist actions? The nations which suffer the worst... the ones the UN terms "developing," these are the nations that suffered from colonialism, overexpansion, imperialism... but, I think that capitalism is not all to blame for their woes.

Actually, the highest overall standard of living right now is in the capitalist nations that are closest to socialism - namely, the Scandinavian countries. And though they are indeed among the ones who have had capitalism for the longest period of time, so is most of South America. Remember that most South American countries won their independence in the early 1800's, and developed modern capitalism at about the same time as many parts of Europe. Yet South America is competing with Africa right now for the position of World's Poorest Continent. Therefore, the "longest experience with capitalism" argument is clearly invalid.

As for China, although standards of living have recently improved a lot for a tiny minority concentrated in urban centers near the Pacific coast, the vast majority of the population is dirt poor and deaths from starvation are not uncommon. There are no signs that this is going to change any time soon.

Regarding the exploitation of the proletariat, have you noticed how many of the things you buy are made in various poor 3rd world countries? You may not think capitalism is so bad if you live in America, but that's mostly because (1) you have a welfare state, and (2) most of the serious exploitation no longer happens in America - it has been outsourced to countries that provide cheap labour and crack down on unions. A major reason why capitalism appears to have a human face today is because globalization has allowed corporations to move all the ugly parts elsewhere.

If capitalism were to disappear from this earth this very moment, I do not think that we would be any better off.

That depends entirely on what kind of system is put in its place.

You can change the name of the system, but the individuals who committed misdeeds under that system will find a way to do so in the next. If communism, under any name, in any form, is to have any chance of success, these people cannot be present. It is as simple as that.

Wrong. There will always be people who "commit misdeeds". The point is to keep their misdeeds to a tolerable minimum.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"If communism truly does have all the answers, as it has been often claimed, then why has it not been practiced in any large form?"

The move to communism would inevitably entail short term loss for long term gain, and many who would not see the gain in their lifetime are unlikely to support it. Moving towards communism would even so mean changes to begin with that include the loosening of the grip of corporations, monarchs, and other existing ruling classes and factions. Consequently, communism would be opposed by existing ruling classes, who, by definition, are powerful, and often powerful enough to discourage and discredit communism. Why aren't we all recycling more, polluting less, etc? Because it costs us personally, and those who lose out by our pollution aren't around to stop us.

That revolutions managed to occur despite this is surprising. But be aware that just because a system is effective doesn't mean it will be initiated. Humans are still humans, and they will exploit circumstances to their own ends wherever they can: revolutions, however well-intentioned, are opportunities for the unscrupulous. That other factors have intervened in those instances where moves in the direction of communism have been mase is hardly surprising, and does not reflect upon the effectiveness of communism itself.

I'll leave it at that for now, though I'm aware that that wasn't the only point being made.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, no, Edric, feel free to change the title of the thread without any consent to me.  :P

Question:

So the government determines a individual's salary, and the government is the people. What makes their choice with how much I get correct? How many people would determine what I make? What if some know me, couldn't that lead to curruption if I was the only one of that job (I.E - CEO of IBM)? Since Socialism doesn't base itself off exploitation, if I was a CEO of some company I started from scratch, would I get additional benefits (in form of money) for creating the jobs?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The specific implementation questions differ between variants. There might be base rates of pay for different jobs (so a builder in one 'company' would not be paid less than an identically qualified builder at another), and modifiers based on your skill, effort, hours worked, etc. Perhaps there would be some assessment of your capabilities so someone who would be most productive as a builder wouldn't be paid as much for being a postman as a builder, whereas someone working just as hard an their 'ideal job' as a postman might be paid more.

"Since Socialism doesn't base itself off exploitation, if I was a CEO of some company I started from scratch, would I get additional benefits (in form of money) for creating the jobs?"

What do you mean? The 'company' would be supported if it finds and fills jobs that are useful, yes, but I'm not sure why more employees necessarily means more money should end up in your pocket. And I don't know where the first clause fits into the logic of that question.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, they often do in capitalist societies. But why does that have to be the case?

Incidentally, why to people start charities and non-profit organisations?

Charities and non-profit organizations are can be state funded.... so basically jobs created by the state.. OR... they are Quality Assurance laboratories that businesses hire out as a separate entity to test whatever and arent considered profit makers.  In addition many charities are started by people who are already stinking filthy rich like Bill Gates and his Wife.

Regardless those are entirely different.  I am referring to a man who wants to make a business to make money to support his family and in the process become wealthy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"1. Public (dh state) ownership doesn't actually mean it is a planned economy"

Edric's not saying there is a link by absolute definition of the two, he's saying what he means by the first term in this context.

"I am referring to a man who wants to make a business to make money to support his family and in the process become wealthy."

Well, no-one's suggesting that he won't be paid. All socialism means is that if his business happens to be lucky, he'll not be making disproportionaltely vast amounts of money more than someone whose business did less well though no fault of their own. As with most jobs, if he works hard, he could become wealthy. Not a billionaire, I grant you, but frankly, thair's fair enough - it's impossible to actually *earn* that much money.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Alright, Edric, I think you've answered most of my objections. I appreciate the effort!

You're welcome, as always. :)

No, no, Edric, feel free to change the title of the thread without any consent to me. :P

For the record, not only was I not the one who changed the title of the thread, but I actually argued against it (to be more exact, against a number of intrusive actions undertaken by a recently appointed moderator... *ahem*) in front of the mighty Gob. So far the issue remains unresolved.

Question:

So the government determines a individual's salary, and the government is the people. What makes their choice with how much I get correct? How many people would determine what I make? What if some know me, couldn't that lead to curruption if I was the only one of that job (I.E - CEO of IBM)? Since Socialism doesn't base itself off exploitation, if I was a CEO of some company I started from scratch, would I get additional benefits (in form of money) for creating the jobs?

First of all, there are no private companies in socialism, remember?

Second, your salary is not determined randomly by the government, or voted on by the people (democracy wouldn't work in this case, just like it wouldn't work in the justice system). Your salary is calculated on the basis of a number of objective parameters, such as the value of the goods or services you produce, the level of education necessary for your job, the number of hours you work and the intensity of the effort, etc. Naturally, if you feel you are being underpaid, you can always join a union and negotiate different terms with the government.

its all about  "incentive"  .. meaning if the owner doesnt think he will get wealthy from the venture... he wont have the incentive and initiative to start the business.

I hope you do of course realize that there are no private businesses in socialism... Since the economy is run by the state, the state is the one who needs incentives to create jobs and keep the economy going well. Those incentives are provided by democracy (government officials must answer before the people for the way they're handling the economy).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Edric, let's suppose that a hundred years from now, the progression of capital-driven corporate globalization continues and provides the fuel for global unrest. What would happen? Would revolutions occur? Where would the unrest be greatest? What form would the unrest take? Would communism rise to fill the power vacuum?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This movement already had an influence on the form of Europe and USA, if not more, and now faces change. For example: 19th century, when Marx lived, was an era of high natality. Now the population is falling and it seems productive citizens won't be able to care for the others in sacrifice of some luxuries, like many supportive projects are. Here we must forget to argue whether it was Stalin or Trockij, who really succeeded this spiritual kalifate; we must analyze what to do now. Most movements are able to do so, why not marxism? Should we simply erase the political aspect and follow it in ethical or esthetical teachings of ie Adorno and Bondy, or continue the universalistic discourse started by Marx in terms of 21st century?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Edric, let's suppose that a hundred years from now, the progression of capital-driven corporate globalization continues and provides the fuel for global unrest. What would happen? Would revolutions occur? Where would the unrest be greatest? What form would the unrest take? Would communism rise to fill the power vacuum?

That's a rather broad question, and, of course, I can only guess about what might happen in the future. But here's my best guess:

Assuming present trends continue without any major changes, we will see the development of a new socialist movement over the years. The present-day "anti-globalization" movement is probably the embryonic form of that future socialist movement. It will be necessary to have a global network of activists; specifically, socialists in the first world need to develop ties with socialists in the third world. The internet could provide an excellent medium for this (after it spreads to a sufficient degree in the third world). It will also be necessary to develop clear goals and a clear plan of action, in order to give a focus to the growing discontent (many people, in the first world as well as the third, will begin to feel the adverse effects of global corporate capitalism more and more sharply - but they won't revolt unless they see a real, well-defined and workable alternative to capitalism). Finally, it will be necessary to fight against capitalist propaganda - and again, the internet could provide the solution, since, unlike other media, it allows for the free distribution of information. If the new socialist movement accomplishes these tasks, we can start talking about the possibility of revolution (violent or velvet, depending on the circumstances).

So where could a global wave of revolutions begin? I have no idea, of course, but South America looks like a good candidate. If the corporations haven't snuffed out democracy by the time this is happening, it might also be possible for a political party affiliated with the new socialist movement to win the elections in a country that has been hit particularly hard by global capitalism. In any case, the first revolution will most likely be the product of regional circumstances in a certain part of the world. But the great powers will immediately invade any newly-established socialist country, thus turning the regional issue into a global one and sparking revolutions in a number of other countries. The goal of the global socialist movement will then be to start (and win) a revolution inside one of the great powers themselves (if the first revolution actually begins in a powerful country, that makes things easier). And then... well, a million different things could happen next. If socialism triumphs in all of the great powers, capitalism is finished. If not, we'll have some sort of a cold war.

Keep in mind that all of the above is pure speculation, however. Things might easily happen very differently. For example, humans might colonize the Moon or Mars, and the first socialist revolution could start there (in a sort of replay of the old American Revolution scenario).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

we must analyze what to do now. Most movements are able to do so, why not marxism?

I agree entirely. Marxism should (and, in fact, must) be dynamic and evolve in order to answer the new realities of the 21st century. Almost 100 years ago, Lenin "updated" Marxism for the new realities of the early 20th century. Another such "update" will probably be necessary very soon (by "update", I mean an answer to the question: "ok, so how do we fight this new form of capitalism?" - a question that must be answered every time capitalism mutates into a new form).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now I want to answer some older posts:

I still have 2 questions unanswered...

1.) In Communism, is EVERYTHING shared? That includes TV sets, toothbrushes... etc.

2.) In Communism, if everybody is paid the same for whatever work they do, would they have incentive? (this is different from the 'basic necessities and human nature' argument)

1.) As Caid said, everything is shared up to the point of consumption. In other words, things are produced in common and they remain common property until someone needs to use one of them. Then that person receives the object he or she needs. Once the person is finished with the object, it either returns to common property (if it is re-usable, like a car) or it is disposed of (if it cannot be used by more than one person - like a toothbrush, for example).

Here's an example: Let's say you live in a communist society and need a toothbrush. You go and pick one from the place where they keep the newly-made common toothbrushes. From that point on, the toothbrush becomes yours - because only one person can use a toothbrush - and you throw it away after it becomes too worn out. The same thing happens when you need a car, but since cars can be used by more than one person, you must return it to the common garage (not throw it away, obviously!) after you're finished with it for the day.

2.) No one is "paid" anything in communism, since money doesn't exist. Society functions along the principle "from each, according to his ability; to each, according to his needs". Incentive comes from the fact that your work benefits society, and thus also yourself (since you're a member of that society). For example, let's say you live in a communist society and you work at designing better and faster cars. This work benefits society, but it also benefits you, since you'll be able to use those better and faster cars too.

In Communism, it won't be possible for someone to work more in a bid to achieve a higher standard of living, right?

In communism, any productive work increases everyone's standard of living, including the standard of living of the person doing the work. Therefore, by working, you WILL increase your own standard of living. See my example with the car designer above.

Also, would anybody bother to invent something if it benefits not just himself? Even if he can retry any number of times...

Most inventors invent for the sake of inventing, because they love their work. But leaving all that aside, and assuming every inventor invents for his own benefit, why would he object to his invention being used for the benefit of others in addition to himself? As long as he benefits from it, why would he mind it if other people benefit too?

No matter how hard I try, I can't seem to organise my friggin' thoughts properly and convince others that Capitalism will fail and Socialism and Communism will prevail! I need help! Everybody always says the same old damn thing.

Humans will twist it, and it will fail.

WHAT CAN I DO!?!?!?!

They seem to make a rather stupid argument. Ask them WHY they think humans will twist it, and HOW they think this will happen. Once you get into the how's and the why's, you'll probably notice that many of them have the wrong picture about what "socialism" and "communism" actually are, so you can point out their misconceptions (i.e., if they say "communism will fail because of human nature", explain all the flaws in that argument).

Of course, it might also help to learn more about socialism and communism before you try to convince others... And I can help with that. :)

dont you see though, that you lead a similar crusade against capitalism liek many capitalists do against communism and sociallist philosophies? You are acting the same way that many you argue with are.

[...]

Well maybe it isnt your place to prosolatize others to your cause. You make those who disagree with you sound completely wrong, and by doing this you are making yourself the fool because your opinions are no more valid than those with capitalist ideals.

Hey, it's not my fault that they sound completely wrong. :) You should consider the possibility that maybe they are wrong. At any rate, that's certainly what I believe and what I always attempt to prove - because otherwise I wouldn't be arguing with them, would I? Politics involves different ideologies clashing with each other. They are mutually exclusive, so they can't all be right. So of course we're all "acting the same way" in crusading against each other, just like all sides in a war "act the same way" in shooting at each other. The Allies and the Nazis both "crusaded" against each other in WW2, but does that mean that they were the same? Of course not. The Allies were right, and the Nazis were wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree entirely. Marxism should (and, in fact, must) be dynamic and evolve in order to answer the new realities of the 21st century. Almost 100 years ago, Lenin "updated" Marxism for the new realities of the early 20th century. Another such "update" will probably be necessary very soon (by "update", I mean an answer to the question: "ok, so how do we fight this new form of capitalism?" - a question that must be answered every time capitalism mutates into a new form).

Problem is that marxist movement stands alone against the world: waves if socdem, anarchism and german christian socialism are considered as "betrayal", as they accept the main thesis of capitalism and only want to base on its effects. Then, capitalism also has no manifest, no objective definition, only what certain economists (between them Marx and Lenin too) write. All we can say about it is that it is a "current economical system", which would mean, if we would erase time and space, temple economy of Babylon as well as dynamic financial organism of these days. To be sure, capital would have to exist in socialism as well, just in other form and not privately. When we follow another systematical socialist thoughts, we can find even more contradictions, like those between Stalin and Trockij in case of form of socialist government, if we would add wave started by Fromm and Adorno, then it is impossible to think about any type of political change!

Question shouldn't be placed as "how do we fought today's economy", this is a fully destructive ansicht: but "what to change in today's economy to fulfill our ideas".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Problem is that marxist movement stands alone against the world: waves if socdem, anarchism and german christian socialism are considered as "betrayal", as they accept the main thesis of capitalism and only want to base on its effects.

Actually, anarchism rejects capitalism just as much as marxism does. And most anarchists accept the marxist analysis (and criticism) of capitalism. They just disagree with the marxist solutions to the problems of capitalism. It is only the social democrats and some of the Christian socialists (though by no means all) who accept the main points of capitalism and only want to add a certain number of socialist elements to it.

But, at any rate, I see what you're trying to say: That marxists have been known to be quite "purist" and reject many possible allies over the years. That is a mistake I do not make. Standing alone against the world is a very bad strategy. I always try to convince my purist comrades to be more open to working together with other leftist anti-capitalist movements.

Then, capitalism also has no manifest, no objective definition, only what certain economists (between them Marx and Lenin too) write. All we can say about it is that it is a "current economical system", which would mean, if we would erase time and space, temple economy of Babylon as well as dynamic financial organism of these days.

What are you talking about? We have a clear and objective definition of capitalism, and it is a definition accepted by the pro-capitalist ideologies themselves.

Capitalism is not just "the current economic system". Capitalism is the economic system in which the means of production are private property, while all people are equal before the law. The fact that the means of production are private property separates capitalism from the systems that will come after it (socialism and communism), while the fact that all people are equal before the law separates capitalism from the systems that came before it (feudalism and slaveryism).

People are also equal before the law in socialism and communism, and the means of production are also private property in feudalism and slaveryism, but capitalism is the only system in which people are equal before the law AND the means of production are private property.

To be sure, capital would have to exist in socialism as well, just in other form and not privately.

Of course.

When we follow another systematical socialist thoughts, we can find even more contradictions, like those between Stalin and Trockij in case of form of socialist government, if we would add wave started by Fromm and Adorno, then it is impossible to think about any type of political change!

Some branches of what you call "socialist thought" (such as the one represented by Stalin - although that is better described as a branch of a branch of a branch of socialist thought) have gone out of the socialist realm altogether, and created their own separate systems. This is not too unusual. After all, the same thing happened with some branches of liberal and conservative thought.

Question shouldn't be placed as "how do we fought today's economy", this is a fully destructive ansicht: but "what to change in today's economy to fulfill our ideas".

Well, yes, that's what I meant. I agree that your formulation is better, though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are going to a dogmatization trap. When one fruit of the same tree doesn't taste good, it doesn't mean it is from a different tree. Same is with Stalin as well as socdem, which you can't declare "cut off" the line, "unorthodox" (merry Christmas btw). Stalin perhaps made the more effective form of Lenin's proletarian dictature system - so what's the evidence that it doesn't belong to the original line? Difference between teachings and practice of Zenon and Marcus Aurelius are also different, and yet we consider both as one stoic school. Fact is that if you make a connectionist approach to the thing, Stalin would be a brother to Trockij. As by recurrence it is here natural for anybody to see the common root, we must lead the discourse by other way in future, not try to say, that it simply "went" by another way. That's a work for Orwell's Winston.

Same with capitalism, which is a phantom discourse. Free economic models were since Smith and Mill very diversed from politics, and so it would be very unhonest effort to speculate otherwise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

your salary is not determined randomly by the government, or voted on by the people (democracy wouldn't work in this case, just like it wouldn't work in the justice system). Your salary is calculated on the basis of a number of objective parameters, such as the value of the goods or services you produce, the level of education necessary for your job, the number of hours you work and the intensity of the effort, etc.

Objective parameters? ROTFLMAO. You're not taking into account there will always be fluctuations in demand for certain goods and services because humans will not let their desires and tastes fit into graphs and statistics like economical planners want them too. That's what they tried to do in the Soviet Union, when they decided that the people wanted X number of sandals and therefore produced X number of sandals for a pre calculated price. However the people would not want sandals, because the Russian climate would freeze their toes off- but that aside, let's say that the people actually want twice the amount of sandals the government calculated then only the ones who run to the stores and push everybody aside will get them, and there will be massive ques in front of stores. Were the Soviet union capitalist, the enormous demand of sandals vs low stock would raise the price, and only those who really want the sandals would buy them, and everybody would be happny.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  Ok.  I like the arguments, this has been extremely eye-opening for me, a burgeoning Communist, but I'm afraid I have to ask the pragmatic question:

  Ok, we know what we want, how do we get there from here?

  Or does this belong on another discussion?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Equality is death. (ever heard of heat-death in physics?)

Since you're comparing human beings to molecules, I would have to ask: Is heat-death good or bad for the molecules themselves?

Obviously, this question cannot be answered (since there are no such things as "good" or "bad" as far as molecules are concerned), and that is why your comparison is flawed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...