Communism was tried by the first settlers in the USA (interview, illegal)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
One of the great mysteries of our time will be why the USSR was considered a threat to anyone but sobriety. In truth, the Russian people are still deeply wounded by World War 2; it literally destroyed everything in that nation. Russia has still yet to recover from the death toll alone. Capitalism wouldn't have worked in the USSR any more than communism did. You simply cannot suffer losses of that magnitude and expect any one thing to be a magical panacea to all your woes.
The USSR also had to cope with the aftermath of WWI - the famines, casualties, dislocations due to the war, desertions, bandits, finish the civil war, the victorious Allied forces sending in regular troops to help the White Russians. It's a wonder they were able to put themselves back together enough to stand off Hitler & the Nazis.
I think you have a point here, but a nation with say a million or two 150 person tribes separated by less than a 1000 years or maybe a few centuries of ancestry seems more cohesive and harmonious than one that is continuingly growing by the importation of tribes separated by as much as 60,000-120,000 years of ancestry.
There are obviously things you can do to minimize the potential for conflict between the various groups. But what I was trying to explain, is that for communism to exist, it requires the suppression of greed(IE self-interest). But the only thing that can suppress self-interest, is love(IE an emotional bond). But it is impossible to love the entire world. You can only love a maximum of about 150 people.
So basically, communism can only work on a small-scale, so long as humans remain human. The only way any government can exist on such a large-scale, is by appealing to everyone's self-interest.
That either requires incentives or consequences. And honestly, all societies, beyond dunbar's number, exist only through fear and greed(or force and self-interest).
But my point was they were at first overwhelmingly allied tribes of Greeks OR Romans OR Egyptians with close ancestry, not allied tribes of Greeks AND Romans AND Egyptians AND etc of very distantly related tribes. That wouldn't work but we're trying to make it work multiculturalism and globalism.
Starkly differing tribes would (and do) occasionally align to defeat a common enemy. However, historically they have and always will go back to slaughtering one another.
In fact, this multiculturalism is such a joke, historically speaking, that I've more or less come to the conclusion that this is all a setup for something nasty that is coming this way.
My word, they're pumping millions of Arabs into Germany as fast as possible. This is a nation that is the world's historical meat grinder. An absolute tinder box. A slaughterhouse. A chessboard stained deeply with blood. And that's well before we look at WWI or WWII, or before we look at one the German's do to outsiders! I'm talking just about what they have done due to the perceived differences within the groups that you collectively now know as "Germany". And now they are adding millions of Arabs as fast as possible.
Not only is mass immigration historically ridiculous, but it can only be looked at as intentionally destructive and utterly reprehensible in terms of what the history shows.
In fact, we backed off of "open borders" style empire, after 30 years of slaughter (8 million people dead), with the Treaty of Westphalia that created the nation state. That was liberalism. Now, all of he public school #metoo pseudo-liberals are reversing that process; almost all ignorant in regard to the liberal history that they are spitting on.
It's a lot of dead to ignore.
Communists also have a lot of murder to ignore (100 million dead in the 20th century), which their movement is wholly guilty of, in their support.
It's almost as if corpses don't really matter to liberals.
There are obviously things you can do to minimize the potential for conflict between the various groups. But what I was trying to explain, is that for communism to exist, it requires the suppression of greed(IE self-interest). But the only thing that can suppress self-interest, is love(IE an emotional bond). But it is impossible to love the entire world. You can only love a maximum of about 150 people.
So basically, communism can only work on a small-scale, so long as humans remain human. The only way any government can exist on such a large-scale, is by appealing to everyone's self-interest.
That either requires incentives or consequences. And honestly, all societies, beyond dunbar's number, exist only through fear and greed(or force and self-interest).
I did see your point about communism only being applicable to a small group who have a lot of brother hood, such as a small tribe where kinship is a factor. I was just extrapolating that brotherhood and shared kinship matter in a larger nation for their to be altruism, harmony etc.
Starkly differing tribes would (and do) occasionally align to defeat a common enemy. However, historically they have and always will go back to slaughtering one another.
In fact, this multiculturalism is such a joke, historically speaking, that I've more or less come to the conclusion that this is all a setup for something nasty that is coming this way.
My word, they're pumping millions of Arabs into Germany as fast as possible. This is a nation that is the world's historical meat grinder. An absolute tinder box. A slaughterhouse. A chessboard stained deeply with blood. And that's well before we look at WWI or WWII, or before we look at one the German's do to outsiders! I'm talking just about what they have done due to the perceived differences within the groups that you collectively now know as "Germany". And now they are adding millions of Arabs as fast as possible.
Not only is mass immigration historically ridiculous, but it can only be looked at as intentionally destructive and utterly reprehensible in terms of what the history shows.
In fact, we backed off of "open borders" style empire, after 30 years of slaughter (8 million people dead), with the Treaty of Westphalia that created the nation state. That was liberalism. Now, all of he public school #metoo pseudo-liberals are reversing that process; almost all ignorant in regard to the liberal history that they are spitting on.
It's a lot of dead to ignore.
Communists also have a lot of murder to ignore (100 million dead in the 20th century), which their movement is wholly guilty of, in their support.
It's almost as if corpses don't really matter to liberals.
Doesn't that sound a lot like Democrats identity politics, the "people of color" alliance? And multiculturalism and mass migration that liberals push so much does seem like it is a setup for something nasty to come, and already beginning, besides just putting nasty liberals and globalist permanently in power. That they push it so hard in stable Western countries is very curious. I think you hit the nail on the head with your post.
That wouldn't work but we're trying to make it work multiculturalism and globalism.
Very simplistic.
The "diverse" tribes got together by force applied by the strongest of them (in most cases). Do some reading. Ancient Kings had the heads of their close tribal former kings mounted right next to their thrones.
I think you have a conclusion - which has NOTHING to do with the subject at hand - and are trying to make things fit.
Globalism is the way of today. You will have to move to a compound in Idaho (and still buy Chinese goods) or accept it.
It could actually work out to be MUCH more peaceful than our bloody past (% wise).
They say "a little knowledge is worse than none at all" and that is how I feel about my Trumpie friends. Many are "know nothings". They don't understand that what we call capitalism and trade and even diversity has been going on for thousands of years and that it is what has advanced mankind. It's like they think the world started with the American Revolution or the Civil War.
The Trumpies can't even point to the US Constitution as establishing either capitalism or any of their other talking points (except forgetting to address human bondage). Yet they hold it up as sacred.....a sacred text that allows some humans to own others. Doesn't sound like capitalism to me.
The "diverse" tribes got together by force applied by the strongest of them (in most cases). Do some reading. Ancient Kings had the heads of their close tribal former kings mounted right next to their thrones.
I think you have a conclusion - which has NOTHING to do with the subject at hand - and are trying to make things fit.
Globalism is the way of today. You will have to move to a compound in Idaho (and still buy Chinese goods) or accept it.
It could actually work out to be MUCH more peaceful than our bloody past (% wise).
They say "a little knowledge is worse than none at all" and that is how I feel about my Trumpie friends. Many are "know nothings". They don't understand that what we call capitalism and trade and even diversity has been going on for thousands of years and that it is what has advanced mankind. It's like they think the world started with the American Revolution or the Civil War.
The Trumpies can't even point to the US Constitution as establishing either capitalism or any of their other talking points (except forgetting to address human bondage). Yet they hold it up as sacred.....a sacred text that allows some humans to own others. Doesn't sound like capitalism to me.
I did see your point about communism only being applicable to a small group who have a lot of brother hood, such as a small tribe where kinship is a factor. I was just extrapolating that brotherhood and shared kinship matter in a larger nation for their to be altruism, harmony etc.
Oh I agree. The greater the similarities, the greater the harmony. Or put simply, the more diversity, the more potential for hatred, selfishness, and violence.
Though, I think a lot of the supposed brotherhood and kinship in a large nation is mainly the result of the presence of "foreigners" or "outsiders". There is no concept of being an American, except not being Canadian or Russian or Chinese. People don't think of themselves as Christians until there are Jews and Muslims. People don't think of themselves as white until there are Africans and Asians.
These "others" become "our people", largely out of necessity(IE self-preservation/protection).
Or as George Orwell wrote, in England your England.
"It is quite true that the so-called races of Britain feel themselves to be very different from one another. A Scotsman, for instance, does not thank you if you call him an Englishman. You can see the hesitation we feel on this point by the fact that we call our islands by no less than six different names, England, Britain, Great Britain, the British Isles, the United Kingdom and, in very exalted moments, Albion. Even the differences between north and south England loom large in our own eyes. But somehow these differences fade away the moment that any two Britons are confronted by a European. It is very rare to meet a foreigner, other than an American, who can distinguish between English and Scots or even English and Irish. To a Frenchman, the Breton and the Auvergnat seem very different beings, and the accent of Marseilles is a stock joke in Paris. Yet we speak of ‘France’ and ‘the French’, recognizing France as an entity, a single civilization, which in fact it is. So also with ourselves. Looked at from the outsider even the cockney and the Yorkshireman have a strong family resemblance."
It could actually work out to be MUCH more peaceful than our bloody past (% wise).
I wrote this earlier in the comment section of a video entitled. "Chomsky Responds to Steven Pinker on Violence."
Quote:
"Did civilization turn us from Chimpanzees to Bonobos? Or did civilization turn is from Bonobos to Chimpanzees? This is where the battle-lines seem to be drawn.
I think civilization does a good job of limiting intratribal violence, but civilization tends to worsen intertribal violence, by increasing both the scale and frequency of violence. Prior to civilization, there just weren't many reasons to go to war, because there wasn't much to gain, and much more to lose.
But in a state of civilization, the goal of every state is to dominate the entire world. You must conquer what can be conquered, and keep your enemies divided and weak. Likewise, they must do the same to you. The Darwinian pressures on states are far greater than the Darwinian pressure on any given person or tribe.
The argument put forth by Thomas Hobbes was that, in a state of anarchy, it is a war of all against all. If you imagine each state as a person, then imagine how this idea plays out when comparing the state against the individual.
As an individual, you are more-or-less equal to other individuals. Thus, even if you would like to kill or enslave your neighbor, you are limited in your ability to do it. He is probably equal, or mostly equal to you. And even if you were able to do it, there are great risks, since not only does he have family and friends who would be opposed to it, but even your own family and friends would feel threatened if you were arbitrarily killing and enslaving people, since they could be next.
But imagine you were a state, and your power was significantly greater than your neighboring states. This state of inequality of power, might allow you to conquer and enslave much of the world, at almost no cost to you. And if there were other powers like yourself, all competing to dominate as much of the world as they could, before the others took it. Then it would create a near-perpetual state of war, conquest, and enslavement, on a global-scale, until there was again a balance of powers.
After the development of the nuclear bomb, and with the world carved up between two great powers, the Soviet Union and the United States, we finally reached a point in which the cost of direct war became far greater than any benefits. The only wars and conflicts which are still being fought, are just proxy wars being supported/financed by the competing imperialist powers.
If, at some point in the future, the entire world was brought under a single government, all wars would cease. Thus a one-world government would both end intertribal violence(since there would be only one tribe left), and it would limit intratribal violence(as it has always done).
So is the state violent? Is the absence of the state peaceful? Well, it depends on where and at what time-period you are looking at.
Is it better to live now than at any other time in history? That depends on your values. If you think living longer and being comfortable and having lots of toys is good, then this is the best time in history. But there are many social, spiritual, moral, and existential reasons to be opposed to not only the current age, but to so-called "progress" more broadly, and especially to the potential prospect of a one-world government.
They decided to all work for communal good, pool food etc in one storehouse. This lasted one year and was quickly abandoned because there was a group who slacked off and lived off of others hard labor. Thus the start of the DNC and the socialists of today. Nothing has changed.
Some high school drop out.
Let's see. Was it the Pilgrims or the Puritans?
Seems folks don't know their history.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.