Ah damn... I wish I had half the time I used to have.
If there's something I've learnt from discussing with you Jesus is that you do all possible attempts at breaching communication during the discussion either by creating strawman fallacies or by merely not adressing or even reading the arguements presented to you. This would make anyone think that discussing with you can't be but fruitless. Nonetheless, I believe that it's incorrect to actually leave your false assertions unanswered.
Communism was created by a certain school of thought to refer to a certain system with certain characteristics. Whatever that does not match these characteristics does not match the definition and thus neither does it match the concept.
The term was adopted by many to refer to a series of systems that have few or nothing to do with communism. I'd argue that this was done mainly to appeal to the working class and to be able to contend against actual communists.
If communism is XYZ and some guy comes up with WXB, which by the definition of "communism" is not communism, calling it communism does not make it communism.
Of course, to understand what I'm saying the etymology of the word has to be traced back to its origins for within the mainstream communism has been used to tag what it's not specially in the last half of the XX century.
I already did explain this a couple of times so I don't see why this should be neccesary anymore.
It's not even about "real" and "unreal" communism, it's about what communism actually stands for. What existed in the USSR, China, Eastern Europe and several other countries was not even "fake communism", it was not even an attempt at it. It was plain State-run capitalism, "capitalism" being understood as a system where the means of production can be privately owned by individuals while individuals or groups of individuals work for them.
Want a hypothetical example of "fake communism"? Suppose there's a state that enforces a condition in which all the workplaces are run directly by the workers, being the workers those who set the modes of production, the policies within the workplace and the value of their work directly. Where every single decision is directly made by the workers. Then, this state would serve as an organism through which all workplaces would be connected in which all workplaces would have representation to coordinate activities, a representation conformed by workers that are always within the working community to which they belong, a representation that only exists in the form of periodic meeting between these representating workers.
That would be "fake communism", and even it seems that pragmatically it would actually be socialist as the state de facto wouldn't seem to have much power.
Now, about you targetting the "average man".
First of all, fortunately the great majority of people are not like you Karl, that is, they're not people with whom it is impossible to effectively communicate.
Secondly, there's a pretty good reason for which most people are "uneducated" or not quite prepared intellectually. Gramsci would call that cultural hegemony, Taylor would call it "scientific management".
People have been culturally forged to obey in this system. The whole economical system is based upon the premise that minorities composed by your peers have the right to actually dictate as many aspects of your life as possible - the salary you get, the price of the things you need, the laws by which you have to abide. People are taught that the only way towards freedom is actually choosing who their master is to be. Education has been conceived in such a way that critical thinking is as suppressed as possible, at least within the teaching programmes (fortunately many teachers do not follow them). We're fed with idiotic terms as "state of law" to legitimize the status quo. The language is as modified as possible to serve the interests of the ruling class. This whole system is based on the premise that the whole Earth should be owned and ruled by few and that the majority should serve that few.
Teach all that crap to people that barely have the time to actually read something by themselves, to people that have to work as much as possible merely to survive, to people that do not have the possibility to criticize the reality they live in and what you get is a bunch of mindless drones that will spend their entire lives doing nothing but to produce and consume at the pace you determine under your conditions while making you wealthy. You'll get people whose main objective in whis life will be nothing higher than simply breaking their backs working for you at the exchange of some slight monetary remuneration with the promise of a retirement when they'll be barely able to walk, hear, talk, see or even remember stuff. You'll get people literally sacrificing their health just so that you can live far longer and better than them.
Of course make sure to silence as much as possible those who criticize this, those who explain that there are actually other alternatives and that teh real power lies within the people. Kill if necessary those that try to teach the people that there are ways out of this misery and that the only power that the ruling class has, is the power bestowed to them by ignorance, apathy and sheer cowardice.
That's what has been happening even perhaps for millenia at an ever increasing rate. There's no best way to control the masses than to prevent them from learning and silencing those who try to teach, to withhold knowledge and prevent its dissemination. It's been always the same stupidity. In the middle ages it was the church and the monarchies who withheld this knowledge, then came the Renaissance and made it a little more widespread. Since that moment until today, and at an ever decreasing rate and with staunch resistance from part of the ruling class, most knowledge has been harnessed by artistocracies and the bourgeoisie.
It's literally just matter of time before the "2nd Renaissance" happens and its thinkers already wrote and spoke and many of them died attempting to diseminate the truth. Just as many were prosecuted by the church for diseminating truths that hindered their power and said truths discarded as lies, so have those that disseminate truths that hamper the bourgeoisie's and states' rule have been prosecuted and these truths tagged as "lies" and "nonsense". And just as truth has been prevailing in the case of natural phenomena defended by science, so will science assist truth in this case.
Science can also be and has been applied to society giving birth to socialism. Behold for science's power has been demonstrated elsewhere and it shall defeat ignorance as well in this case.
Currently, how small is the ammount of actual creationists in the world? Certainly they're a minority, a minority whose numbers are falling. The ammount of capitalists today is proportionally even smaller and so will soon be their power.
Home 
Subject: Re: Realization 
Sat Oct 10, 2009 10:21 pm
