the problem with communism is the centralisation of power. "Some are more equal than others" - Orwell (Animal Farm). Even though many individuals walk into politics with ideologies intact with intent to not merely enrich themselves but for the benefit of a nation most find themselves becoming complacent as time pa**es and they take the power, wealth and other resources at their free disposal for granted, and begin to cling to them when they perceive the time to pa** the buck to have arrived. Look at Robert Mugabe.
This of course is not exclusive to communism, it is human nature and therefore also exists in the milieu of democracy and capitalism. However, in democracy these individuals/organizations/forces at the top of the pyramid can be kept in check by the wrath of the ma**es should they abuse this power too much, BUT in communism, with everything belonging to the state, the state is effectively god.
Of course the people in power are still abusing their powers in our contemporary 'western society', running dirty tricks behind the scenes and keeping the wrath and 'sauron's eye' of the ma**es in check and distracted through media. my argument is...that ANY centralisation/monopoly are subject to potentially being abused by power. Fox News/Microsoft etc.
As focault puts it...knowledge is power, He who controls knowledge (the media/ the state/ the corporations) will use that power to bend it to his will...why? Because he wants to retain his status quo. This will happen with any centralisation, unless there are other external independent forces that act as a counter-force to keep the inevitable-effect-of-human-nature in check. Of course there are certain temporary states where centralisation can work...if the seat of power is occupied by an indivdual who is aware of his purpose position as temporary guardian of power - Madiba was one of these people, and emperor of Nepal is one of those people - individuals who are aware of the dangers of centralisation of power and purposefully try to abject and distribute power to others. But they leave an open space for a potentially a more selfish minded successor. Communism would effectively be a more timid monarchy - some kings were better than other. But eventually one bad-a** King will rock up to f*** everything up. Except inseat of the king you would have a panel of decisionmaker 'comrades'.
I believe that the inernet is our saviour - with an ulimited amount of possible connection - a netowrk of knowledge (power) opinions and counter opinions (forces and counter-forces), the world is becoming an increasingly stable and safe place. Channels of knowledge are being distributed to the ma**es without a centralised channel (like any news network) that filters and dilutes knowledge and shapes it according to the political paradigm it co-exists in. eg. CNN, Fox News etc...have to cooperate with the us government because otherwise they dont get the juicy 'treats' (eg. being able to broadcast live war), They are all in the same bed. Read Noam Chomsky's 'Manufacturing Consent' - very enlightening on that topic.
The internet is an exciting 'technical advancement' as applied to Foucault's notions of of Knoweldge and Power. subject (individuals or organisation) learn to exert self-discipline when they perceive their own visibility which, Foucault argues, is the initial motivating factor for learning to discipline the self., and eventually begin changing to 'become' the new 'ideal' in line with the 'popular common sense', which is increasingly tending towards a more 'socialistic' contentmen for ALL people. Yes i'm an idealist. But its the way the world seems to be heading, because in dialogue the truth begins to unravel itself as more and more opinions are added.... with THIS THREAD and AG being a good example of a think tank producing mature and realistic opinion, as reality IS constucted in social discourse, shaping and being shaped concurrently (but thats another topic). NOW i have to go take a piss
Poll