In point of fact we don't have a political system that works perfectly. Some of you may be shocked to hear this.

No, but some work a hell of a lot better than others. Am I in the twilight zone?

(November 23, 2017 at 2:11 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: No, but some work a hell of a lot better than others. Am I in the twilight zone?

No, you're just outside your safety bubble. There's air out here, take a deep breath.

(November 23, 2017 at 2:02 pm)CapnAwesome Wrote:

(November 23, 2017 at 1:17 pm)Hammy Wrote: The whole point of "in theory" as opposed to "in practice" is that it doesn't need to "actually work" in practice. Jesus.

A good idea in theory isn't necessarily a good idea in practice . . .

The previous paragraph on your post actually made a lot of sense and I was going to kudos your post until I read this last line. Which prevents me from kudosing it because it might mislead people into actually thinking that I think that something not being a good idea in practice means it's not a good idea in theory when obviously I don't think that.

With regards to your first paragraph, I agree that democracy is so far the only form of government that has actually worked. And in fact I think this quote is very appropriate:



There are certainly HUGE flaws with democracy (as demonstrated by Brexit and Trump winning), but it's far better than every other form of government that has been tried so far.

I believe results are part of what makes something a good idea. If you go out drunk driving and crash,  you don't say it was a good idea in theory.

If something doesn't work again and again and again how is it a good idea in theory?

What you believe,  as always, remains a mystery,  since, as usual,  it comes with no explanation as to why something can be a good idea in theory but not in practice.  Par for the course for you though.  Maybe one day I'll be able to get actual reasoning out of you.

A good idea in theory is a good idea in theory.

Your example about drunk driving is terrible. That's obviously a bad idea in theory and in practice.

I don't need to give any examples of a good idea in theory because I know what "in theory" means. Jesus. If I could give examples that would be examples in practice because examples refer to things that have been tried in the real world! The whole point of 'in theory' is that the idea makes sense. It's good in practice when you try it out and it works. And there are many ideas that are fine in theory but fail in practice because when someone tries to apply them they misapply them. You may say "Well they didn't really apply it in practice then" but that's what in practice means, when you attempt something in theory by trying to practice it.

(November 23, 2017 at 1:17 pm)Hammy Wrote: There are certainly HUGE flaws with democracy (as demonstrated by Brexit and Trump winning), but it's far better than every other form of government that has been tried so far.

Maybe universal suffrage isn't the best way, as the common folk are easily swayed by sparkling bright lights.
Democracy as out was used by the ancient Greeks our voices pin the hands of a few... Maybe that's also not the best way...
Something in between?...

But how to adequately represent the people? The whole people?

(November 23, 2017 at 2:00 pm)downbeatplumb Wrote:

(November 23, 2017 at 1:57 pm)Gawdzilla Sama Wrote: Or maybe it failed and you want to blame something/someone for that failure.

That's like kicking a car door in and saying it was bound to be damaged in a crash anyway.
It never had a chance to prove you wrong.

IMO it never had a chance of working in Cuba. The Leninist model specified by the OP has been the template used by all Marxist revolutions (aside from Spain) and they ALL resulted in totalitarian regimes. I consider myself a Marxist, but NOT ONE SINGLE communist regime established on planet earth is one in which I would chose to live under.

Marx wasn't just a utopian. He had great faith in mankind-- way too much faith if you ask me. The system he envisioned is one where the workers organized a system of production themselves. He did outline a "dictatorship of the proletariat" but this phase was supposed to be temporary AND it was supposed to be a government body of WORKERS not Communist Party leaders. Lenin replaced a capitalistic elite with a bureaucratic elite. It could be argued that right there he departed from Marxism.

To say communism "would have worked" in Cuba if only the US had left them alone is false. I read propaganda that says this sort of stuff all the time. Bullshit. There are problems with Marx's original theory. Leninism should be tossed out the window. The only way I see a Marxist system actually working is if it

1. Guarantees inalienable rights (free speech etc. to all citizens)-- otherwise you get dictators
2. Adopts republican democracy (with a balance of powers) instead of authoritarian bureaucracy 
3. Allows a robust capitalistic enterprise to thrive within its borders (so long as capitalism isn't the most powerful economic influence present) 
4. Ensures the complete education and provides healthcare for all citizens

To the argument that this system doesn't sound "Marxist" but more "Democratic Socialist" I beg to differ, but my reply is lengthy. Short answer is: it has a strong libertarian element which differentiates it. Also, it is based on collective need first; capitalism is there to give people what they want. You also can't pin me to any present day Marxist ideology.

Since I have kinda suggested that I find myself on the libertarian left, I want to say that anarchism, anarcho-syndicalism, anarcho-communism etc. are all pipe dreams. Even if you could get these societies to work, they would implode within hours-- they are highly unstable and have no central stabilizing force present to ensure they last.

Even my iteration of Marxism might not work today. Perhaps people aren't ready for it. But maybe they will be in, say, 500 years (hopefully sooner). All I'm saying is that, if it can be made to work, it is a better system than capitalism.

(November 23, 2017 at 2:28 pm)Hammy Wrote:

(November 23, 2017 at 2:02 pm)CapnAwesome Wrote: I believe results are part of what makes something a good idea. If you go out drunk driving and crash,  you don't say it was a good idea in theory.

If something doesn't work again and again and again how is it a good idea in theory?

What you believe,  as always, remains a mystery,  since, as usual,  it comes with no explanation as to why something can be a good idea in theory but not in practice.  Par for the course for you though.  Maybe one day I'll be able to get actual reasoning out of you.

A good idea in theory is a good idea in theory.

Your example about drunk driving is terrible. That's obviously a bad idea in theory and in practice.

I don't need to give any examples of a good idea in theory because I know what "in theory" means, Jesus.

In theory, if everyone contributes to the common good, society advances.
In practice, you need to get everyone on board with this idea and that just doesn't happen. When you see your beautiful plan not working because the people are uneducated or simply disagree, you force them to comply... And thus a dictatorship begins with the obvious crappy results.

(November 23, 2017 at 2:33 pm)pocaracas Wrote:

(November 23, 2017 at 2:28 pm)Hammy Wrote: A good idea in theory is a good idea in theory.

Your example about drunk driving is terrible. That's obviously a bad idea in theory and in practice.

I don't need to give any examples of a good idea in theory because I know what "in theory" means, Jesus.

In theory, if everyone contributes to the common good, society advances.
In practice, you need to get everyone on board with this idea and that just doesn't happen. When you see your beautiful plan not working because the people are uneducated or simply disagree, you force them to comply... And thus a dictatorship begins with the obvious crappy results.

This happens in any society.

If people can see directly relationship between dire consequence and not contributing to the common good, common good can be attained remarkably effectively against severe adversity.

The thing that helped to cripple soviet style communism is ironically the fact that it was even less able to effectively establish a convincing relationship between dire consequence and not contributing to the common good in day to day life, than in many capitalist societies. So pervasive inefficiency, laziness, shirking expanded into ever larger parts of the Soviet economy.

(November 23, 2017 at 7:10 am)pool the matey Wrote: Are you a communist? What are you opinions about communism?

Note: I mean the Marxist-Leninist ideology to be more specific.

Marxist-Leninism is a deeply unworkable system if all the many states who've tried it are any indication. I suppose it can work if your ideology is flexible enough that you're willing to change your ideology to fit with changed circumstances (so the many cries of "splitter" that came about as a result of the many leaders trying to shoehorn it into their cultures should be meaningless), and hopefully if you're strong enough to not get crushed by the more authoritarian systems. These criteria are not likely to be held simultaneously in one system, let alone one that self-describes as "communist," let alone Marxist-Leninst.

Then again, I suspect most political systems aren't all that workable.

Communism (at least as practiced): Just another way of selling utopia to the gullible masses while a few corrupt individuals at the top get all the reward while those at the bottom toil and get very little but patriotic statues and speeches.