On Mon, 6 Mar 2000, Sunder wrote:
> Erm, it is the same thing if you happen to be the worker/serf. You are
> owned and anything you have in your possession isn't yours. It doesn't
> matter much whether it's the Lord or the Party that owns it. What does
> matter is that you don't. :)
>
> The flip side is also true to some extent. The members of "Party" can
> be thought of the same way as the Lords. They all report to the king or
> chairman, but they enjoy luxury and power while the workers/serfs don't.
No, they're not the same at all.
The distinction being that (at least in theory) everyone in a communism
has a say through their local commune. It isn't a question of 'own' but
'share'. Nobody is property because there isn't any concept of personal
ownership. In a serfdom only a small group has a say in anything and
everything is somebodies property (private property on steroids perhaps).
Being a member of a communism (at least a theoretical one) one has a say
in what happens through participation in their local communal meeting
where decisions are made. If you look at some of the more rural areas of
Russia in 1917 and 1918 you'll find some wonderful examples of how
Communism is supposed to work. Unfortunately those were quickly eradicated
and a more centralized (contrary to the communist creedo) 'communism' was
put in place with a single central party making the decisions. The lower
levels are tasked with making it happen. This is a clear demarkation
between theoretical communism and what acutaly happened.
____________________________________________________________________
The future is downloading. Can you hear the impact?
O[rphan] D[rift>]
Cyber Positive
The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate
Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087
-====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'-
--------------------------------------------------------------------
