Alejandro Dubrovsky [s335984@student.uq.edu.au] wrote:
>To dismiss this as blatant nonsense is to dismiss
>communism as blatant nonsense.
Yes. And your point is?
>I think it just
>means that needs should be met, but does not say anything about the size
>of these needs.
And who decides what my needs are? And who decides what my abilities are? This is why communism is blatant nonsense; most people's needs are much, much greater than their abilities, and hence no-state communism rapidly degenerates into bureaucrats fighting over scraps. The only way communism can work is in small voluntary communities or groups with a massive productive surplus; it cannot work on a large scale.
(At this point someone will mention the 'glorious nanotech future without
material limits, comrade', but that's as implausible as any other commie
dream.)
>I don't know of any country which defined
I certainly noticed that when the USSR collapsed my commie friends suddenly
started claiming it was "state capitalist", not communist. No, no, communism
didn't fail, if it failed it must be capitalism, because communist ideology
tells us that capitalism must fail and communism must succeed.
>itself as a communist state.
Mark