Communism.

Communism.

Spirituality

Cookies help us deliver our Services. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn More.

The Near Genius

Fort Gordon

Joined
24 Jan 11
Moves
13644
21 Sep 11

Originally posted by Proper Knob
That's easy, blow your brains out. You'll be there in no time.
That doesn't work. We are instructed to endure to the end.

Cape Town

Joined
14 Apr 05
Moves
52945
21 Sep 11

Originally posted by RJHinds
That doesn't work. We are instructed to endure to the end.
And why do you think you are instructed to do so?

The Near Genius

Fort Gordon

Joined
24 Jan 11
Moves
13644
21 Sep 11

Originally posted by twhitehead
And why do you think you are instructed to do so?
To demonstrate our faithfulness.

Cornovii

North of the Tamar

Joined
02 Feb 07
Moves
53689
21 Sep 11

Originally posted by RJHinds
To demonstrate our faithfulness.
What would happen if you didn't 'endure to the end'? ie. you took my advice a couple of posts above.

Joined
31 May 06
Moves
1795
21 Sep 11

Originally posted by Proper Knob
What would happen if you didn't 'endure to the end'? ie. you took my advice a couple of posts above.
His oh so forgiving god would throw him in hell for all eternity....

Oh no wait that's wrong, he would simply cease to exist.

Of course the real question is to why he still hasn't answered why he thinks a book
that instructs rapists to be forced to marry their victims should be followed as a
moral authority....

I guess that's because there is no answer and he wont admit it.

Ming the Merciless

Royal Oak, MI

Joined
09 Sep 01
Moves
27626
21 Sep 11

Originally posted by twhitehead
In other words - communism can't function in the real world.
Yes, it can. And did so for about 95% of human history.

Joined
31 May 06
Moves
1795
21 Sep 11

Originally posted by rwingett
Yes, it can. And did so for about 95% of human history.
I would like to see your justification for what you mean by this because on the face
of it I disagree totally.

Ming the Merciless

Royal Oak, MI

Joined
09 Sep 01
Moves
27626
21 Sep 11

Originally posted by googlefudge
I would like to see your justification for what you mean by this because on the face
of it I disagree totally.
For about 95% of human history, mankind lived in egalitarian bands of hunter-gatherers. There was no private property and no hierarchical social structure. It was what Marx and Engels referred to as "primitive communism."

m
Ajarn

Wat?

Joined
16 Aug 05
Moves
76863
21 Sep 11
2 edits

Originally posted by rwingett
For about 95% of human history, mankind lived in egalitarian bands of hunter-gatherers. There was no private property and no hierarchical social structure. It was what Marx and Engels referred to as "primitive communism."
And Mao Tse Tung practiced 'developed communism' therefore??

Ming the Merciless

Royal Oak, MI

Joined
09 Sep 01
Moves
27626
21 Sep 11

Originally posted by mikelom
And Mao Tse Tung practiced 'developed communism' therefore??
No.

r
rvsakhadeo

India

Joined
19 Feb 09
Moves
38047
21 Sep 11

Originally posted by rwingett
For about 95% of human history, mankind lived in egalitarian bands of hunter-gatherers. There was no private property and no hierarchical social structure. It was what Marx and Engels referred to as "primitive communism."
No hierarchical social structure ? No leaders of the hunter gatherers? No sexual differentiation of tasks e.g. Pregnant women exempted from hunting?

Ming the Merciless

Royal Oak, MI

Joined
09 Sep 01
Moves
27626
21 Sep 11
2 edits

Originally posted by rvsakhadeo
No hierarchical social structure ? No leaders of the hunter gatherers? No sexual differentiation of tasks e.g. Pregnant women exempted from hunting?
A sexual differentiation of tasks is not equivalent to a hierarchical social structure. In hunter-gatherer societies hunting naturally tends to be a predominantly male occupation, while the gathering is predominantly female. But there has always been some overlap between them. In some primitive societies females do a significant amount of hunting.

r
rvsakhadeo

India

Joined
19 Feb 09
Moves
38047
21 Sep 11

Originally posted by rwingett
A sexual differentiation of tasks is not equivalent to a hierarchical social structure. In hunter-gatherer societies hunting naturally tends to be a predominantly male occupation, while the gathering is predominantly female. But there has always been some overlap between them. In some primitive societies females do a significant amount of hunting.
Were the women who only gathered,treated on par with men who hunted? Were there not spotters of the quarry as against those chased the quarry after it was spotted? The braves who tackled dangerous quarries like boars as against those who killed hares? The complex task of hunting would have immediately resulted in upsetting the balance of this society.

Cape Town

Joined
14 Apr 05
Moves
52945
21 Sep 11

Originally posted by rwingett
There was no private property and no hierarchical social structure.
And your evidence is?

Ming the Merciless

Royal Oak, MI

Joined
09 Sep 01
Moves
27626
21 Sep 11

Originally posted by rvsakhadeo
Were the women who only gathered,treated on par with men who hunted? Were there not spotters of the quarry as against those chased the quarry after it was spotted? The braves who tackled dangerous quarries like boars as against those who killed hares? The complex task of hunting would have immediately resulted in upsetting the balance of this society.
I'm afraid the evidence does not back you up. If anything, it is the exact opposite, with females having much greater influence within hunter-gatherer societies than they do within more "civilized" societies.