Let me take a more specific approach...

[CB Shin]

As I said before, not to those extremes. Junyi and I wanted to buy a state, so if you didn't agree with it, then you could simply move out. The Marxist region would be in the heartland of the United States. Kind of ironic :laugh: The point is that anyone who would agree with the methods would want to live there. Since there are a relatively small number of Marxists, seeing the corruption it sowed before, it would work. This is because that there would be no power-hungry people trying to gain leadership. The ambitious man would have nothing to gain, I mean for goodness sake, its Kansas, which is precisely the point. Almost everyone would know each other, and since leadership means pretty much nothing, everyone would be content with their lives. Am I making sense, cause I know I worded it kind of strange.

[Tom222666]

So, are you saying it would work there because Kansas natives would not struggle under Marxism? Anyway, for that matter why Kansas? Any small state would do becuase, under your logic, they wouldn't fight there leaders. Explain this a little further to me, I don't understand your logic.

[Bio]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Tom222666 [/i]
[B]So, are you saying it would work there because Kansas natives would not struggle under Marxism? Anyway, for that matter why Kansas? Any small state would do becuase, under your logic, they wouldn't fight there leaders. Explain this a little further to me, I don't understand your logic. [/B][/QUOTE]

[font=tahoma][size=1]He means, and said it drectly, that it would work only in a small area. I actually agree to that point, which I stated early on in this thread... It was the beginning of my last post on page 2.

Such a system in my opinion, could work with a very, very small group of people, maybe 20 at most. It would be ideal for three or four people, and in my opinion, nothing more. Even in such a small number, one person is going to eventually request higher pay, more rewards, etc. It's human nature.[/size][/font]

[Guest ScirosDarkblade]

I agree with Bio. The sort of society Marx envisioned is thoroughly unnatural. In the whole of human history, no society has existed that did not have a leader. Social animals have leaders, for crying out loud. It is only because man can, through willpower, overcome his inner desires that a Marxist society can even exist within a SMALL community for any amount of time. Eventually, as people's willpower wavers and they lose respect for the society they live in, the community will dwindle, until maybe a couple of fanatics are left. I really don't see it happening any other way.

[CB Shin]

As I mentioned before , Natives have the option of moving out and Marxists have the option to move in. You probably think that this would be unfair to the natives who live there, which is the point of having a large state with a small population, like Montana or Maine. Any person who has a desire to have more power or money should not come in the first place, therefore only the true Marxist would actually come. Actually I had the idea of using three seperate branches like the United States so that power is divided equally in a place with a larger population, but for a smaller group, there would only be one leader decided by the group.

[DeathBug]

[color=indigo][font=century][size=1]Shin, do you honestly think that, even if you could gather enough people to do this, that the US would ever let a piece of itself just go off on its own and be communist? Remember the Cold War? Hell, rember the Civil War?

And I must say, the eviction philosophy is pretty harsh. I guess a Marxist government wouldn't have any problem with stealingf land, though...

All right, assuming that you realize that there's no way you're emptying a state (and Maine is actually one of the smaller, more populated states in the Union, BTW), and you found an uninhabitied piece of land to found Marxilvaynia on...

Well, assuming it had decent resources in the first place, I give it twenty years, tops. It would fall for all of the various reasons I've explained several times.[/color][/font][/size]

[CB Shin]

Well, first off, we were just having fun with the idea, as if we could actually afford to buy such a large piece of the United States in the first place. And anyway, the complications would be less than with a large country, like Russia or China. People who think alike and have the same morals are more likely to get along, though that applies to everything. Assuming that we actually bought off a piece of land, people have the option of moving in or out of the place if they find something unsatisfactory. Almost always, America will go to war when the country itself is in danger or if "Democracy is threatened". I don't think we would be in either catagory, because I wouldn't try to force propaganda on anyone.

[Dan L]

CBShin, it seems that Marxism has one massive misconception.

It's not leadership that corrupts, it's the way that people lead.

If there is no leader, then nothing can ever really be achieved because there is no-one to weigh the opinions of the people. A good leader doesn't look to have his own way, but to direct people in the way they need to go.

Also, a good leader, though higher in authority, should also be lower in that he or she [i]serves[/i] everyone. If someone can not be a servant first, then they can not be a good leader.

Leadership isn't about self exaltation- a leader should consider themself equal with those that they are leading. The only thing that they have in greater measure is responsibility, not greater rights, or blessings, or a greater status.

Sadly, the things I've said are not the things which the majority of leaders follow- hence we have a lot of bad leaders.

You can't just look at bad leaders and conclude "then we should have no leaders", because if there is no leader, then there is no progress, because there is no continuity, and without continuity nothing can be built upon because the foundation always changes.

Leadership, like a lot of things, is only bad when it is done badly. Which unfortunately is a lot of the time.

[Boba Fett]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by CB Shin [/i]
[B]And anyway, the complications would be less than with a large country, like Russia or China.[/B][/QUOTE]

[color=green]I doubt that. Look at the war that?s being fought in Chechnya. Russia certainly isn?t going to give up any of its land. Especially to a country that plans to be communist.

I?m not as sure about China, but I also doubt it.

Land is extremely hard to come by theses days, especially if you plan on establishing your own nation.

If you truly wish to experiment with Communism, I?d suggest hooking up with some university. You could probably find one to set you up, temporarily, in a mini communist society for research purposes. Certainly easier than establishing your own nation.[/color]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by CB Shin [/i]
[B]Assuming that we actually bought off a piece of land, people have the option of moving in or out of the place if they find something unsatisfactory.[/B][/QUOTE]

[color=green]If this is going to be your policy, I?d be prepared for people to leave just as quickly as they arrive. Most communist nations, past and present, have had great numbers of their people flee due to the failure of the system.[/color]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by CB Shin [/i]
[B]Almost always, America will go to war when the country itself is in danger or if "Democracy is threatened".[/B][/QUOTE]

[color=green]You?re partially right here. The United States, like any other nation, will defend itself if attacked.

The policy of defending democratic nations goes back to the Cold War, when US policy was to stop the spread of communism. Both the United States and the Soviet Union were pushing their own systems of government, and the struggle between these two superpowers was polarizing. It was rare to find a neutral country of any importance in world affairs.

Your quotes around the phrase ?Democracy is threatened? imply doubt. Not being one to assume anything, I?m asking you whether you meant this sarcastically or with doubt. If so, I want to take you to task on it.[/color]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by CB Shin [/i]
[B]I don't think we would be in either catagory, because I wouldn't try to force propaganda on anyone. [/B][/QUOTE]

[color=green]You seem to be very much the idealist CB Shin. If history is any indication, idealists are pushed aside in most communist nations by those who give in too the human emotions of greed and ambition. The communist system seems especially prone to this kind of perversion. These people, not you, would end up churning out propaganda to warp the minds of the people.[/color]

[CB Shin]

I'm not sure what you're implying Dan L, but I already mentioned that there would be a leader. I said that in a small group, the leader would be chosen by the people he would be leading. Virtuous leaders are hard to come by, so I would trust the people to make their own decisions. This is especially easy since in a small group, everyone would get to know each other much faster. What I posted earlier meant that the leader would unlikely be corrupt, because if he did take advantage, he would have nothing to gain in such a small society.

Interesting insight, Boba. Most leaders of Communist-failed countries were corrupt, and so as a result, people suffered. As I've mentioned before, I tried limiting the corruption by using the principle of "Nothing to gain, nothing to lose". Most wars in the past start with a conflict of interest. The whole reason for the Cold War was that the Communists said "Our way is the only way" and vice versa for the Americans. In such a small society, such a thing would never happen, as the small society can never contest with such a larger nation. By the way, I did not imply anything when I put quotes, I'm just used to putting them there... For everything else after, laws must simply be put up to restrict the actions of the people so that no one can get out of hand...

[Dan L]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by CB Shin [/i]
[B]What I posted earlier meant that the leader would unlikely be corrupt, because if he did take advantage, he would have nothing to gain in such a small society.[/B][/QUOTE]

Power corrupts, regardless of amounts, Shin. If someone feels that they have power, even in a small community, then they will probably corrupt. You don't need masses of people to take advantage of them and feel that you have power- you can be just as power-hungry over all the people in your quiet little area where the rest of the world has little or no influence.

Maybe it would be better to re-read my post, but wherever I put the word "leader", replace it with "mass leader", or "leadership" with "mass leadership". That's more what I was getting at. ;)

[Boba Fett]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by CB Shin [/i]
[B]Most leaders of Communist-failed countries were corrupt, and so as a result, people suffered.[/B][/QUOTE]

[color=green]It was the communist system that caused the corruption of the countries. This weak system of government practically invites corruption. In a communist system, the leader is the only official. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

?Nuff said.[/color]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by CB Shin [/i]
[B]As I've mentioned before, I tried limiting the corruption by using the principle of "Nothing to gain, nothing to lose". [/B][/QUOTE]

[color=green]Where?[/color]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by CB Shin [/i]
[B]Most wars in the past start with a conflict of interest. The whole reason for the Cold War was that the Communists said "Our way is the only way" and vice versa for the Americans. In such a small society, such a thing would never happen, as the small society can never contest with such a larger nation.[/B][/QUOTE]

[color=green]Your country would give birth to a second generation, which would probably rebel against its parents and leave for the free world. There these deprived children of communism would experience the joys of capitalism. You society would die out.

It is inevitable that some conflict would arise within your nation, made up of people who all profess to be equal. Eventually, someone would have to decide something. This would upset some people, who would either leave your country or start a civil war. Most nations have had one or more civil wars.

Somehow I doubt your hypothetical nation?s success.[/color]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by CB Shin [/i]
[B]For everything else after, laws must simply be put up to restrict the actions of the people so that no one can get out of hand... [/B][/QUOTE]

[color=green]Who will decide these laws? Who will be elevated above the masses to pass judgment? If a disagreement arises over punishment, how will it be resolved? After all, all of you are equal. If you vote, you become a democracy?

If someone among you makes the decision for you, you become a dictatorship.[/color]

[Guest ScirosDarkblade]

Plus you have to consider the fact that no nation can live completely isolated from others without having enough self-sustaining resources (which doesn't happen). As soon as you have to interact with other nations you have to pick delegates, you have to make currency, etc, etc. And you haven't even begun to consider all the problems of an educational system that'll try to produce "equals," (which is what you damn well better do if you want actual communism).

Honestly it's all fun and stuff to try to design a hypothetical completely Communist country, but the only place it would work is comic books. I think after enough inherent problems in a system are discovered, maybe the system should be revised, don't you think? Otherwise you're just being stubborn.

Also, CB Shin, I don't understand why you'd want to live in a nation where you will be deprived of luxury instead of living in a nation where you can CHOOSE to live like that? After all, on a personal level, what is there to gain from communism that you can't get from controlled capitalism in a socialist democracy?

[Sir Kyle]

Indeed, it's that pesky human nature that gets us everytime, isn't it.

For one to go out and start themselves a near marxist society and expect it to function perfectly and without flaw is a tough concept to swallow.

The way I see it (and believe me, you may find no merit here), people are human. As dumb as that sounds, everyone is suceptible to human nature and human nature nowadays is to succeed at what you do as well as being primally emotional about things. Everyone has bouts of greed, bouts of love, bouts of hate, bouts of everything that a Marxist society takes as mortal enemies.

Don't get me wrong, Marx's ideas are quite ideal and in theory would be a great way to live. It's a nice view, but with that little human nature factor thrown into the pot, it's impossible to every achieve what he had in mind.

No one is immune to this kind of emotion, therefore there would always be someone dissenting against the idea of the community or society. I believe that your society would have so many people moving in and out of it so quickly that you could never ever have a base to start a new type of government. Humans are too sporadic for that, I believe.

It's a tough shell to crack, but in all reality, no society is going to be perfect. I guess what works, works. In my very humble opinion, I believe Marx's ideas were great and were ahead of his time, but his view of society could never EVER be achieved due to the X-Factor that is human nature and emotion. Secondly, though I'm not 100% into capitalism myself, I believe it's a very successful form of government. When you give liberty to all, ultimately, you must give people the right to succeed in life and to pursue happiness in any way they feel they may achieve it. That means that there will be classes and there will be a very uneven distribution of wealth, but this nation is still held together quite firmly though you may not be a fan of survival of the fittest. I think American society is a great example of what happens when you let people do what they want for them and not for the good of the commune. And hey, we're still a nation so we must be doing something right. You could also argue that China is still a nation as well, it just seems that we go under less mass turmoil that some other places around the world.

Fact of matter: Nobody is right. Everyone has an opinion and that's human nature at its finest. If you have an opinion, then you express individualism that couldn't be let out fulling in a society like Marx was suggesting. Not saying that you couldn't have an opinion in a Marxist society, it's just that that's the kind of thing that gets people thinking and wanting more things. It's basically a huge stalemate and it's clear that no one here is gonna win the arguement since everyone's so solidified in their point of views. Great topic and discussion, by the way, it's been an interesting read to say the least.


And of course, all in my quite humble opinion.

[CB Shin]

All very legitimate and interesting questions. I have factored in most to all of the issues mentioned that seem to be the most controversial. DanL, how does a leader corrupt if he has everything to lose? Even a corrupt leader needs to have loyal followers and an army or something to maintain the people under his control. In such a small society, if the people were unsatisfied, they could simply overthrow the leader, which is why the leader is motivated to do his best leading the people.

A communist system is only a form of economy. You all know what exactly capitilists are, right? They aren't neccesarily democrats, they are people who invest in a business to gain a profit. In my perspective, they're aren't required in a society. They're there only to benefit themselves at the expense of others, specifically the working class. Who said that our little nation would have to be like all the other corrupt communist countries? A dictatorship isn't required to rule a Marxist type country, simply that more ambitious people take advantage of the system and that is how it is turned into a dictatorship. I also seriously doubt that people would have such little loyalty that they would leave at the first sign of weakness, Boba Fett. There is obviously no such thing as a perfect utopia, and our little nation would simply be comprised of like-minded people who would have the same principles. Also, everyone would make the laws and try to compromise, since it is such a small society, it should not be hard to do. Of course there will be disagreements, but that's no different from society today, people argue, people win. Nothing corrupt about that.

Scrios mentioned several different factors of foreign policy that I have not yet discussed. I plan to take this slowly and seriously. It's impossible to rush something so delicate in form. And yes, I would sacrifice a few luxuries for the greater whole and I would like people to be of like-mind, but that's not going to happen any time soon. Than again, if the society prospers, wouldn't everybody get luxuries instead of just a few? This is all, of course as Sir Kyle put it best, in my humble opinion.

P.S. Iron Willed Scrios, not stubborn :laugh: