3 ms·
I don't think it was a mistake, and I don't think it's a static state. I believe that a group of people could come together and form a community founded on equa
by dkuntz2 13y ago
I don't think it was a mistake, and I don't think it's a static state. I believe that a group of people could come together and form a community founded on equality.
The problem, to me, is more of a logistics problem, because once you get more than ~100 people in an organization, you start losing the immediate connection with them, which means you care less about their well being, because you don't know them. The issue is managing people, and meaningfully punishing ne'er-do-wells.
- kbolino 13y agoWhat you are essentially saying is that people can create a community with the intent of making everyone equal, but they will invariably fail because people are, in fact, not equal. Liberalism and Leninism are two consequences of this axiom. The former tries to provide the weaker but more feasible guarantee of equality of opportunity. The latter tries to make people believe they are equal by getting them to ignore inequality.
- dkuntz2 13y agoNo, because communities are small scale. History has proven that communities can exist in such a state. Societies need to have intent behind them. No society has ever existed without intent behind it. Leninism worked, we know for a fact that it worked, at least until Stalin took over and made it something worse that ultimately didn't work.
- kbolino 13y agoHistory has proven no such thing. Every community has its leaders, and those leaders enjoy a privileged position. Indeed, Leninism is quite successful: at establishing a party of elites, whose job it is to convince everybody else that they're equal and to teach them to ignore the obvious contradictions. I did not say that "society [should] exist[] without intent behind it"; I said that intentions don't matter if the results contradict them.