>Yep. With communism, you quickly find that no matter how hard you work, you
>still don't have enough food on your plate. And the more labor you do, the
>hungrier you are...so the only logical action is to site around all day and
>do nothing.
Anthony,
what you're describing is a particular implementation of communism, which
was faulty. Communism as Marx envisioned it, wouldn't have suffered this
fate as eceryone would have had enough to eat. It's like with Velocity.
Even though Velocity was slow as a dead cat, that doesn't mean all
interpreters have to be as slow. It was only this particular
implementation, while the basic concept allows for speed.
>Went to hell, no doubt.
Don't be so cynical, Anthony. That South Sea island probably survived, but
they've had to re-learn everything I guess.
>But it's also damaging to the giver: You don't have the food that you gave
>to the animals anymore. And if enough animals were to come begging, you
>would have no food for yourself. And you would not have food for them,
>either. That's the ultimate ned of altruism: Death.
Not if everyone is altruistic. Then everyone helps everyone and all get
what they need, when they need it. Seen from this (agreeably one-sided)
viewpoint, altruism is a very good base for a state. The problem is that
here comes in the fact Marx didn't realize (while he realized many things
that are astonishing to see if you look at today's world and how it turned
out so similar to how he said the future would be), that humans are not
beings that are 100% altruistic.
Cheers,
-- M. Uli Kusterer
------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.weblayout.com/witness
'The Witnesses of TeachText are everywhere...'
--- HELP SAVE HYPERCARD: ---
Details at: http://www.hyperactivesw.com/SaveHC.html
Sign: http://www.giguere.uqam.ca/petition/hcpetition.html
