Quote:
Originally Posted by flip
I guess my problem with this statement is that we could see a paradigm shift if it ever does work.
Sort of like how the political science and security studies fields had a huge shift in paradigm after the collapse of the SU.
All historical evidence suggested prior to the SU collapse that when empires collapse they do so violently. After the SU collapse the field had to re-evaluate their assumptions about that topic because of the peacefullness of its collapse.
Unfortunately in Poli Sci, most of our assumptions are based on the past and predicting the future. Since we cannot predict the future, the best you can do is say that SO FAR communism hasn't worked. You cannot however say all communist governments lead to dictatorships, even if all of our examples up until now say that they do.
Keep in mind I am not suggesting that they haven't led to dictatorships in their EXTREMELY brief history, just that to make a blanket statement like that, especially from a political scientist is irresponsible.
|
I think modern political scientists have made a huge mistake in studying only public institutions. The study of philosophy and theory as it relates to human nature is of far more importance and it gives us a much better way of describing and sometimes predicting certain situations based on how institutions collide with humanity.
To say that communism hasn't worked SO FAR is a non-argument. It's not that it hasn't even worked so far, but everytime someone has attempted it, it fails spectacular basis. Not only in economic terms, but with accompanying huge losses of life. I wouldn't want to try a communist system based simply on this fact alone. It, in short, is a system with the express commitment to transforming people and this can only be accomplished with state-sanctioned terror and violence.