| Subject: Re: communism & anarchism: possible links |
Author:
joe shmoe
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 08:30:04 03/25/05 Fri
In reply to:
Acelord
's message, "Re: communism & anarchism: possible links" on 05:15:39 11/01/04 Mon
The failure of Communism does not have to do with "basic human nature." This perception that humans are inherently evil or more succeptable to corruption than salvation is a definition created from a faulty observation of historical events. We just don't always work well in groups, but ad individuals most of us are O.K.
One reason why Communism fell so horribly in the former Soviet Union had to do with the USSR's historical inability to compete in Western markets, which eventually became global in influence. In order to cope, Stalin used his most widely available resources (people, coal, and lumber) to the point of exhaustion in order to create a stable market that was technologically up to par with the West, and in so doing give the government the ability to fix what he was doing at the time and eventually bring the USSR up to par with the West in terms of economic wealth (per capita income, GNP, and things like that) and influence on the world stage. He was doing what former rulers such as Peter the Great had been attempting for his country for centuries. That does not justify his actions, but it gives insight to his motives.
On the case of communists and anarchists, as two separate doctrines they cannot coexist since one advocates no government and one advocates a loose government held by each individual. That does not mean, however, that you cannot be a mix of the two. Communist Anarchism, which is actually a concept that has been around for a long time, focuses on the ideas of a state that is regulated by all the people in it, but in a way that each individual retains a sense of self and is not exactly bound by a "common law". As a result, a group of people with individual goals can still participate in a form of social organization that benefits each individual participant and in so doing give benefits to the whole group. Societal changes can still occur, but only through the benefit of each individual within the group instead of a majority group.
As for the prospect of this happening on a large scale in the near future, I personally don't see it happening. I think it is possible for people to get together in this way, but there are not enough people with the proper mindset needed to engage in such a way of life. That is not to say it's impossible, it's just not within our abilities at this point in time.
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
| |
Feedback: 