Communism: Why it doesn't work

It is a common misconception that communism is an inherently evil totalitarian government. This is unfortunate, as it masks the true reasons why communism doesn't work. The problem with such assumptions about communism is that the nations that call themselves communist are anything but. The Soviet Union was never communist. Cuba was never communist. North Korea was never communist. Vietnam was never communist. China was never communist. Yet people refer to them as the communist countries, as if this describes them. Instead, they are melding the word "communism" to what we see in those nations, a functionally ignorant viewpoint.

The true definition of communism comes from Karl Marx, the writer of the book that defined the word for the masses, The Communist Manifest. This short piece quickly and concisely explains what a country must undergo and form to become a true communism. The definition is as such:
1. There must be an overthrowal of the bourgeois, defined as the upper class in a capitalist society(effectively limiting the countries that can turn into communism into ones that are already capitalist), by the proletariat, defined as the lower class in a capitalist society.
2. The society formed thereafter must be effectively classless, with no divides due to poverty, or property, or any other factors. It should be noted that, according to the manifest, this state will naturally fall into place; society does not actually have to make an effort to push itself into this state.

Now, here's something interesting about the above; it's very, very optimistic about human nature. It assumes that people will not accept the injustice of a society, being considered lower than someone else due to financial status, and will work to form a nation that is utterly equal in all respects, that is the natural form of government. Actually, government is the wrong word; if one takes the entire text into the spirit of the language, no one else having power over anyone would mean there would be no government. What Marx describes is literally a ideal anarchy.

So, it's a mistake to assume that communism fails because it is too cruel and diabolical for human nature. It's rather the opposite; it's too presupposing of humanity's good traits to stand a good chance of actually succeeding. It relies on every member of society working together. A nice dream, but hardly a realistic one.

Karl Marx was a dreamer. It's almost a shame his ideas are shot down like they are because in some ways, they aren't bad.

Dialogue!

Guest: So, you can read palms?

Palm Reader: As easily as you could read a newspaper.

Guest: Then why do you charge so much?

Palm Reader: It's basic economic theory. I must maxi-

Guest: Ok, I wasn't looking for a diatribe.

Palm Reader: Thank you. Now, hold out your hand.

Palm Reader: Now, is this your given hand?

Guest: Yes, yes.

Palm Reader: Ah, well, let's start with your life line. Ah. You're going to die soon. Good day.

Guest: Wait, what?

Palm Reader: Well, look at that line on your hand.

Guest: You mean the broken one?

Palm Reader: Yes, that's the problem. That's your life line, and since its severed you're going to die soon. Good day.

Guest: Now wait just a minute. I wanted a full reading for examination, not just a curt reply involving the most cursory of look-overs.

Palm Reader: Well, it's not like the others would matter, as you are going to die soon anyways.

Guest: What if I don't die soon? Then the other reports would still be important to note.

Palm Reader: But your life line clearly says you are going to die soon.

Guest: Well, I don't actually believe in palm reading, so I want the whole thing.

Palm Reader: That's just incredulous. You want more information on something you won't even listen to?

Guest: I like to experiment. What I wanted to do was record all of what you told me and test how accurate it is.

Palm Reader: That's ridiculous. You can't test palm reading. That ruins the reading.

Guest: So I'm not going to die soon then?

Palm Reader: No, you are.

Guest: Right. So you basically just admitted palm reading is inherently inaccurate.

Palm Reader: Nay.

Guest: Well, you just said that in any situation where anyone actually checks it works, then it doesn't work. Basic logic would say that's clear evidence of it being faulty.

Palm Reader: I don't see how it does. Logic is one way of viewing the world, and palm reading is another. You can't combine the two, and you certainly can't test one world view with another world view, especially when yours is inherently contradictory.

Guest: Excuse me?

Palm Reader: Well, look at the basis of science. Basically, you test things over and over again, and you notice patterns, and then you say those patterns are how the world works.

Guest: I don't see a problem with that.

Palm Reader: Well, consider this. What makes those things considered true?

Guest: Consistency in the tests.

Palm Reader: Ok. And take scientific theory. Why does the scientific method say that things that are reproducible are true?

Guest: Logically, it's a test in the natural world that we see that the results are always the same. Since we always see them as exact, then logically that's must be how it must be.

Palm Reader: That makes no sense. You're basically saying that consistency proves something is true because it is consistent. That's circular logic. The entirety of the scientific method is based off the ability to produce a result consistently, because if its consistent if its true, but there is no reason to actually believe a consistent thing is necessarily true.

Guest: I think you lost me.

Palm Reader: Put it this way. Just because the results of our actions seem to have the same result every time, doesn't mean they won't change the next time, even if we've never seen them occur otherwise. A door can last years before it breaks, but that doesn't mean we expect doors to last forever.

Guest: So...physics is a door?

Palm Reader: It's an analogy.

Guest: Not a very good one.

Palm Reader: Anyways, my point is, science is fallible, since it relies on an assumption that isn't necessarily true. At least palm reading doesn't contradict itself.

Guest: Even if it's wrong sometimes.

Palm Reader: You have no evidence of that.

Guest: I would if you would finish your reading.

Palm Reader: Like I said, it's pointless.

Guest: Anyways, your argument lacks meaning. You basically would allow for the idea that, say, friction could suddenly stop working, and have everything move forever in whatever direction you push it. You're basically denying the fundamental workings of the universe, for palm reading!

Palm Reader: I don't see a problem with that.

Guest: Still, here is my point. Let's assume palm reading is correct.

Palm Reader: I'll gladly agree to that.

Guest: We could then, through acceptance of that fact, say that palm reading is always true, as a scientific theory. But, if we accept your argument that science is fallible, then palm reading is necessarily fallible too.

Palm Reader: Perhaps, but I don't make money off science.

Guest: Anyways, I don't have time for this. I'll find another palm reader.

Palm Reader: No point. None of the other ones are real.

Guest: I'm sure. Goodbye.

Then, everyone died from bubonic plague. THE END.

Hands

The typical human hand has 5 fingers, and a typical human has 2 hands. This is not a coincidence, as 2 is an absolutely awesome number. The advantages of having 2 hands are manyfold; we can count to 2 if we use a hand per number, and 10 if we use individual fingers, a nifty progression.

Now, you may wonder what sparked my discussion about hands. The reason is this: in the future, people seem to believe our hands will become a primary form of identification, due to unique ring patterns progressive on the hands called fingerprints. This belief is retarded, because people will just cut off their hands and replace them with new ones, making it required either to have a database of everyone's hands, which people would argue against due to privacy concerns, or the government to whine about not having that awesome database.. A huge market for black market hands will spring up. People will try to convict them, but even with the suspiciousness of replacing one's hands, that's not actually evidence of a crime, unless they make replacing one's hands illegal in and of itself. And that's just ridiculous.

So anyways, my point is, the first chance I get, I'm totally going to get cyborg hands. Maybe with a calculator built in. It'd be sweet.

Salutations, anthropomorphic petitioners

This is a blog about nothing. Or, more specifically, everything, with nothing being a part of that. Of course, if one goes into semantics, it is impossible to blog about every possible potential event, making blogging about everything impossible, and I hate semantics. I should start over.

This is a blog about many things. These things I have not decided yet, but I'll try to make them interesting, though I won't make any promises. Regardless, if you feel like reading, then read. I won't stop you.