>
> > > ...and if the entire world had become Communist (Trotsky's idea in the 1920s) there would be very few, if any, wars at all.
> >
> > Ha.
>
> "Ha"? Look, although that might be a reasoned and logical response, it sounds much more like a knee-jerk to me. There was logic behind my reasoning, and it goes like this. Trotsky's theory of "permanent revolution" was to encourage the workers to rise up in every country over the world. (Yes, I know that involves violence too, I never said Communism was perfect - in fact, no political system is perfect.) If the entire world (note the ENTIRE world) was Communist, ie if they all held the same political beliefs, and if national boundaries ceased to mean much at all, there would be very little reason for wars. If there are no national boundaries, there is no incentive in terms of land to go to war, and similarly with political uniformity. Of course, this would work with other systems of government, but Communism is the first one to come to mind that emphasises allegiance to the world, not the country.


That's an awful lot of extreme conditions to be met. I don't see every inkling of nationalism magically disappearing anytime soon.

Communism emphasized allegiance to Communism. Not the world.


> When I said that Communism has its problems, perhaps I should have been rather more emphatic. In no state has Communism emerged as Marx originally intended it - it is always corrupted and twisted. Another major problem is that Communism is very antireligious. And of course, no-one could possibly justify Stalin's purges of the early 20th century. Another problem is that individual countries have their own characters, which would be lost entirely under Communist rule.
>


Which would be because Communism, as Marx intended it, is not *practical* out here in the REAL world. Heck, even Lenin recognized this after getting Russia out of World War I, and saw his economy falling apart in front of his very eyes, and was forced to bring back select parts of capitalism in his NEPs (New Economic Plans) in order for Russia to survive economically and for the communists to maintain control.

You *can't* implement Communism as Marx intended because it makes too many incorrect assumptions about mankind, the biggest, of course, being that men would gladly sacrifice all incentive to do better in exchange for security. I for one would rather live knowing I have the chance for a Really Big House and Some Fast Cars at the risk of Living Under A Bridge With the Rats than live knowing I will never have anything more than this Ordinary, Average House with an Ordinary Average Car and an Ordinary Average Paycheck. People like me, and the majority of humanity, are why Communism will never, ever work.

Unless you kill us all.

Or we all get talked into obligatory military service and kill each other.


> In short, Communism is not the answer, but neither is democracy. Until I come across a better political system, I'll probably keep on quietly grumbling. Maybe rather more quietly than yelling it out over a public forum. Never mind.
>
> Si-"If you spot enormous inconsistencies in my arguments, I won't be entirely surprised, given that I need rather more essay-writing practice"-gi

The Other "If you spot enormous inconsistencies in MY arguments, it's because I probably have far less time than you to hammer them out here in front of the computer." Matthew