Why would they not grow food for themselves? In communism, the community is the highest, and everybody contributes as much as they can and receives as much as they need. It doesn't "reward" laziness or incompetence, as if you don't work hard you'd probably be kicked out of the community.
you could go live by yourself if you felt, but have fun doing everything for yourself. We form communities already, and they have to share a geographical area. What binds them together more than that can vary, but a community is a group of people that come together, in the same geographical area, to make life easier, namely through division of labor. In communism, we divide the labor up so that the guy who's best at making shoes does that, and so on and so forth, then we all get what we need.
Originally posted by eviljonhunt81you could go live by yourself if you felt, but have fun doing everything for yourself. We form communities already, and they have to share a geographical area. What binds them together more than that can vary, but a community is a group of people that come together, in the same geographical area, to make life easier, namely through division of labor. In communism, we divide the labor up so that the guy who's best at making shoes does that, and so on and so forth, then we all get what we need.
The phrase "same geographical area" is meaningless. Do people form physical communes of arbitrary size and stay loyal to these arbitrarily formed groups? Do they have townships whose goals they work toward? Cities? States? Nation states?
This is where, from a purely philosophical argument, the Communist line of thinking falls apart. It ignores the sociological factors present in the formation of communities, justifying the different natures and sizes of these communities. An example:
A man is a member of both his local bowling league, his town council, and his neighborhood watch group. To which group does he allocate the lion's share of his resources? Your comment, "a community is a group of people that come together, in the same geographical area..." is, at best, a blissfully ignorant of the way people form and enter social groups, and at worst, a denial of the natural desire to form diverse, yet coexisting social groups.
Let's say, for example, that a man is equally good at husking corn and coding c++. He is also a budding painter, but can't cook for shit. In terms of utility to the commune, he is far less useful than someone who can only build houses. In terms of advancing the species and creating complex sociological relationships, our man is ultimately more important. Under Communism, things like art and technology invariably fall by the wayside, since there is (apparently) no drive toward globalization. Each "community" simply survives within its own mini-world.
Originally posted by Cowboy SpikeWow, a lot of *great* discussion going on here, but there's a few opinions I wanted to express.
Communism is an ideal form of government, because it strives to let individuals use their specific talents to help the common good as well a create an even distribution of power.
Problem is that people are not ideal. It's part of human nature (hell, not just human nature, but nature in general) to be the best. Survival of the fittest, so to speak. People don't want to give up certain individual rights and desires for the common good.
So, Communism is an ideal and lofty plan, but can only exist in some form of utopia. There's always going to be some sort of power-grabbing and corruption in any form of government.
Just my $.02 :)
No, no, no...
What is the common good? I have a professor who talks about this all the time, only he says "community." If ten people are suffering because they can't be bothered to grow food, and I can, should I work all the harder, only to see my rewards thrown to the less able? Communism rewards incompetence, and that's not ideal. I think the fundamental point here is: If you have a system of government that works against human nature, it is a BAD system. You're trying to create a government for humans; you can't blame human nature when it doesn't work. It's like saying "This airplane is GREAT, if not for that damned law of gravity..."
edited for point I forgot to make: There is no common good. It's just a collection of individuals. If ten people are happy and one is not, we'll say that the public is happy. But it still comes down to individual people. I mean, Nazism might have benefited more people than it harmed, so long as the persecuted group was a minority. Obviously, I'm not trying to endorse nazism here. I'm just saying that "the common good," i.e. the majority, is not sufficient justification for, well, anything.
And for you, Spike, "How will the Emperor maintain control without the bureaucracy?"
(edited by PalpatineW on 22.5.02 0114)
The "common good" or "community" would be the most basic things needed for survival. Food and shelter obviously be the most important. Then things such as defending the populus and improving the standard of living (i.e., scientific advancement) for starters.
The problem I have with what you were saying is two fold.
First off, you claim that the "common good" is the majority. The "common good" is *not* the majority. The "common good" are things that everyone needs. Everyone needs food, everyone needs shelter, everyone needs medicine when they're sick, etc. Contrary to what you are assuming, there *are* things that everyone needs. These are the things that communism strives to "share" with everyone.
Secondly, let's go to your food growing example for a second. It's the perfect example of why communism doesn't work. The problem is, you're only looking at it from one side. Let's say *you* can't build a house, but someone else can. They come and build the house for you because it's how the government works, and you give food to them because they can't grow it. It's all about helping your fellow man. Personally, I think that's a noble concept, which is why I think the government is "ideal". If you want to say helping your fellow man shows their incompetence, that's your opinion and your entitled to it.
And for your question "How will the Emperor maintain control without the bureaucracy?", it's really quite simple:
He won't maintain control without bureaucracy.
Even in a dictatorship, there has to be some bureaucracy to handle the running of the country. One man cannot do it all. He can give orders and direction, but he has to have some form of bureaucracy to handle these orders.
"Fear will keep them in line!" --Grand Moff Tarkin, "Star Wars: A New Hope"
CNN says 8. The greater point is that even pledged delegates are not necessarily required to vote the way for the person they were chosen to vote for (although this can lead to their removal as a delegate).