Why has there never be a communist country?

[John Galt]

In all 5000 or so years of recorded history, there have never been any communist countries. The greatest countries the world has ever seen, such as the Roman Republic/Empire, The Greeks, The chinese empire , The Incan empire, the Aztecs and all the modern western countries are not communist. The closest you can get a communist state are the Iriqouis and kibbuztim in Israel.

Ill gladly concede the point that on a small scale (tribal/extended family) level communism works great. So why has there never been a great communist country.

And why is a working class revolution inevitable?

[Lardlad95]

Originally posted by John [email protected] 11 2004, 10:40 PM
In all 5000 or so years of recorded history, there have never been any communist countries. The greatest countries the world has ever seen, such as the Roman Republic/Empire, The Greeks, The chinese empire , The Incan empire, the Aztecs and all the modern western countries are not communist. The closest you can get a communist state are the Iriqouis and kibbuztim in Israel.

Ill gladly concede the point that on a small scale (tribal/extended family) level communism works great. So why has there never been a great communist country.

And why is a working class revolution inevitable?
well as far as ancient civilizations go most people in the "olden days" were under the illusion of divine right monarchies and dynasties. New ideas about government didn't really start developing until well after these civilizations had already ended. The only different form of government we saw were aristocracies and in Rome and Ancient Greece a republic and a democracy. However the problem was that the democracy was exclusive to Athens and excluded women,slaves, and foriegners. And the roman republic was really just an aristocracy.

True democracy, like pure communism, has never really existed on a scale larger than a city state.

Political, Economic, and Social history is a process. We've evolved passed the age of divine right monarchies, fuedalism, and in more sucessful nations Theocracies.

No communist would expect a communist society to exist on a large scale in the past, human society needs to evolve to a point where it is possible, and back then it simply wasn't possible.

[Bradyman]

In all 5000 or so years of recorded history, there have never been any communist countries. The greatest countries the world has ever seen, such as the Roman Republic/Empire, The Greeks, The chinese empire , The Incan empire, the Aztecs and all the modern western countries are not communist. The closest you can get a communist state are the Iriqouis and kibbuztim in Israel.


This is most likely because these empires did not have the breeding grounds for a "communist" society. None of these countries had a mass working class mainly because technology hadn't advanced to the point of factories, division of labor, and so on.

Small groups had communist societies, but on a large scale, it requires a large amount of workers, which these countries failed to have.

[Misodoctakleidist]

There has never been a communist country becuase society hasn't reached that stage yet. None of the "great contries" you mentioned were capitalist either and i would refute their greatness.

[John Galt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2004, 10:48 PM
And the roman republic was really just an aristocracy.

Common misconception :P. It was for some short times, but the tribunes held it in check until the empire. There was even a law requiring one of the two consuls to be a plebian.


So why do all you try to create a revolution? It will happen by itself once humanity reaches the right point, no?

[John Galt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2004, 10:48 PM
There has never been a communist country becuase society hasn't reached that stage yet. None of the "great contries" you mentioned were capitalist either and i would refute their greatness.
So a system where people can freely trade and choose their occupation (slaves excluded) is ......?

[Misodoctakleidist]

Originally posted by John Galt+Jan 11 2004, 11:00 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (John Galt @ Jan 11 2004, 11:00 PM)
[email protected] 11 2004, 10:48 PM
There has never been a communist country becuase society hasn&#39;t reached that stage yet. None of the "great contries" you mentioned were capitalist either and i would refute their greatness.
So a system where people can freely trade and choose their occupation (slaves excluded) is ......? [/b]
that would be the ancient mode which preceded the feudal mode.

[synthesis]

There has never been a communist country because communism is global.

But that wasn&#39;t really your question.

Marx saw communism as the inevitable "end-point" of human relations and civilization. Since all of human history has been composed of class relations, communism is as advanced as humanity will get because communism abolishes class and therefore class relations.

Everything that has happened up until communism has occured for the purpose of achieving communism.


Ill gladly concede the point that on a small scale (tribal/extended family) level communism works great.

This is how humanity started and is simply an example of how the communist mindset exists in human nature. Marx termed it &#39;primitive communism.&#39;

The problem with primitive communism is that nothing is automated. Marxian Communism takes the primitive communist mindset and applies it to the state of industrialization that has made the majority of manual labor technologically obsolete.


And why is a working class revolution inevitable?

I read about an interesting piece of new technology the other day. It makes a good analogy for the Marxist theory in general.

http://www.ivsource.net/public/photos/CHAU...emo/balocco.htm (http://www.ivsource.net/public/photos/CHAUFFEUR2demo/balocco.htm)

The Mercedes corporation is developing a freight truck that is completely automated; it shifts lanes, honks, stops, starts, uses a turn signal, parallel parks, and toasts your bread.

But what happens when this technology becomes widespread and available to many companies that use freight trucks in their daily business?

It&#39;s simple. The truck-driver becomes obsolete. Many truck-drivers do not have a higher education, and truck driving is all they&#39;ve ever known for their occupational lifetime.

So what happens? Unemployed truck-drivers revolt and assume control of the system.

That last sentence may seem incredible - until you apply this scenario to all global industries.

So now we have automated industrial technology doing most of the work, but instead of benefitting private individuals, it works for the greater, public good.

This is Communism.

[Lardlad95]

Originally posted by John Galt+Jan 11 2004, 10:59 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (John Galt @ Jan 11 2004, 10:59 PM)
[email protected] 11 2004, 10:48 PM
And the roman republic was really just an aristocracy.

Common misconception :P. It was for some short times, but the tribunes held it in check until the empire. There was even a law requiring one of the two consuls to be a plebian.


So why do all you try to create a revolution? It will happen by itself once humanity reaches the right point, no? [/b]
...So are you saying that the majority of the members in the republic weren&#39;t aristocrats? Because I&#39;m well aware that the lower classes were represented, but up until now I&#39;ve never heard a claim that the class distribution of the representatives was equal.




So why do all you try to create a revolution? It will happen by itself once humanity reaches the right point, no?

You&#39;ll have to ask some communists that question. I"m not for revolution unless it&#39;s a last resort. I believe in peaceful means, ie. education of the people culminating in a democratic take over.

Also The right point in history never occurs without prodding. Early American Revolutionary thoughts didn&#39;t occur off a whim, the American Revolution helped implement them.

[Misodoctakleidist]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2004, 11:08 PM
You&#39;ll have to ask some communists that question. I"m not for revolution unless it&#39;s a last resort. I believe in peaceful means, ie. education of the people culminating in a democratic take over.
I don&#39;t think &#39;democratic take over&#39; is possible mainly becuase it requires democracy to exist in the first place, to enter into bougoire politics would be to recognise them as legitimate which would kill the revolution.

[John Galt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2004, 11:08 PM
...So are you saying that the majority of the members in the republic weren&#39;t aristocrats? Because I&#39;m well aware that the lower classes were represented, but up until now I&#39;ve never heard a claim that the class distribution of the representatives was equal.



Id say that their power was balanced, but representation was unequal.

[John Galt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2004, 11:06 PM
The problem with primitive communism is that nothing is automated. Marxian Communism takes the primitive communist mindset and applies it to the state of industrialization that has made the majority of manual labor technologically obsolete.
Besides the fact that I doubt the car can drive WELL, as of this point in time, computers have no way to think. Any job which requires people to think creativly, cannot be done by computers.

[Lardlad95]

Originally posted by John Galt+Jan 11 2004, 11:17 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (John Galt @ Jan 11 2004, 11:17 PM)
[email protected] 11 2004, 11:08 PM
...So are you saying that the majority of the members in the republic weren&#39;t aristocrats? Because I&#39;m well aware that the lower classes were represented, but up until now I&#39;ve never heard a claim that the class distribution of the representatives was equal.



Id say that their power was balanced, but representation was unequal. [/b]
well if you are correct that power was balanced it is unfortunate that it didn&#39;t last for very long.

I like the idea of Republics(democratic of course) however I feel all sides must be equally represented. But hey rome lasted for thousands of years so I mean cappies and commies/socialists need to shut up cuz none of our movements hold a candle to those numbers

[Lardlad95]

Originally posted by Misodoctakleidist+Jan 11 2004, 11:15 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Misodoctakleidist @ Jan 11 2004, 11:15 PM)
[email protected] 11 2004, 11:08 PM
You&#39;ll have to ask some communists that question. I"m not for revolution unless it&#39;s a last resort. I believe in peaceful means, ie. education of the people culminating in a democratic take over.
I don&#39;t think &#39;democratic take over&#39; is possible mainly becuase it requires democracy to exist in the first place, to enter into bougoire politics would be to recognise them as legitimate which would kill the revolution. [/b]
No i don&#39;t have to recognize them as legitamate, I just see it as beating them at their own game.

Also in my opinion it&#39;s easier and smarter to usurp rather than destrooy and rebuild.

[synthesis]

Originally posted by John [email protected] 11 2004, 11:19 PM
Besides the fact that I doubt the car can drive WELL, as of this point in time, computers have no way to think. Any job which requires people to think creativly, cannot be done by computers.
Of course. Humans will never be made completely obsolete in that sense. Communism enables those men and women whose creative energies have been repressed due to manual labor or other mind-numbing work to fully exercise them to any degree they wish.

[John Galt]

Originally posted by DyerMaker+Jan 11 2004, 11:34 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (DyerMaker @ Jan 11 2004, 11:34 PM)
John [email protected] 11 2004, 11:19 PM
Besides the fact that I doubt the car can drive WELL, as of this point in time, computers have no way to think. Any job which requires people to think creativly, cannot be done by computers.
Of course. Humans will never be made completely obsolete in that sense. Communism enables those men and women whose creative energies have been repressed due to manual labor or other mind-numbing work to fully exercise them to any degree they wish. [/b]
And capitalism allows them to do the same. They just get rewarded for having creative energies.

[redstar2000]

So why do all you try to create a revolution? It will happen by itself once humanity reaches the right point, no?

A common mis-understanding.

The process of "reaching the right point" requires effort by living human beings.

What Marx predicted is that a growing number of workers would want to make that effort, as a result of their material conditions.

People who are conscious revolutionaries have simply figured things out "ahead of time", that&#39;s all.

There&#39;s nothing "special" about us; it&#39;s mostly a matter of chance that we had the opportunity to "pick up on things" ahead of most people.

History seems to work that way. Certain changes are called for...but who will do them and exactly how they manage the job is largely a series of "accidents".

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

[synthesis]

Originally posted by John [email protected] 11 2004, 11:35 PM
And capitalism allows them to do the same. They just get rewarded for having creative energies.
Not if they&#39;re stuck in a minimum-wage job struggling just to pay for their food and shelter.

When your thought processes are consumed by the choices you have to make daily in order to survive, it makes it very hard to start a campaign to popularize your great new idea.

[Rasta Sapian]

john galt, sorry buddy, but you are as dumb as shit,
that was a metaphor for you.

[John Galt]

Originally posted by Rasta [email protected] 12 2004, 12:50 AM
john galt, sorry buddy, but you are as dumb as shit,
that was a metaphor for you.
Thanks for your useful comment.

Now, does anyone have something constructive to add?

[Eastside Revolt]

Are you the reverened john galt ? :P

[John Galt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2004, 01:12 AM
Are you the reverened john galt ? :P
You should revere me, but I am not a reverend.

[A Pict]

I am.

In the universal light church:)