Why is Communism Often Misunderstood as an Evil Ideology?

[evthis]

"To give what one can give, to be given what one requires" that is the basic tenant of communism. Why do people think this is an evil institution? The communist manifesto maybe?

commune/sharing/give onto others and you would like them to give onto you?

 

[Integral]

The ideals of communism are not bad, it is the implementation that suxs. Unfortunately the ideals of communism seem to neglect human nature, so it may be impossible to find an implementation that works.

 

[loseyourname]

Communism is inherently unfair and it rewards lack of accomplishment by bringing every person down to the same level.

 

[Moonbear]

I think it falls apart at the "to give what one can give" side of things.

 

[russ_watters]

Both sides are unfair, Moonbear:

"To give what one can give, to be given what one requires" that is the basic tenant of communism. Why do people think this is an evil institution? The communist manifesto maybe?

If you give someone what they "require" without them earning it, is that really good for society? That teaches people that regardless of how badly they screw up, they'll always get a freebie. If you reward failure (and punish for success as below), people will not ever attempt to succeed.

The other side is more obvious: If you take from people who earn more, what incentive do they have to try to earn more?

Communism rewards mediocrity. (failure, even)

One need only a brief stay in a former communist country to understand. You can't escape the stifiling stench of government subsidized mediocrity.

 

[Moonbear]

Both sides are unfair, Moonbear:...

If you give someone what they "require" without them earning it, is that really good for society? That teaches people that regardless of how badly they screw up, they'll always get a freebie. If you reward failure (and punish for success as below), people will not ever attempt to succeed.

The other side is more obvious: If you take from people who earn more, what incentive do they have to try to earn more?

Communism rewards mediocrity. (failure, even)

One need only a brief stay in a former communist country to understand. You can't escape the stifiling stench of government subsidized mediocrity.

I guess I see both parts of the argument as still falling apart at not giving what you can give. That's what makes it inequitable. If one person is the only one doing any work and giving handouts to everyone else who is doing nothing, those who are doing nothing aren't giving all they can give. And, likewise, who decides what it is you have to give? Are you really giving all you can give, or just giving what you're willing to part with, or doesn't cause you too much trouble to provide?

Well, it really does spin into an out of control cycle, where people are rewarded for being lazy, then those who are working hard realize this and choose to be lazy too, so nobody can get what they need, so don't bother putting in any effort if they're not getting anything out of the system, etc.

I'm actually not arguing against your points, I just failed to elaborate in my first post, so have done so now.

 

[kirovman]

Look at Chinese "Communism".

Actually, it's not really communism is it?

 

[fourier jr]

how about "from each according to their ability, to each according to their need"?

there was a poll done where a majority of americans thought that statement was in the US constitution somewhere, but really it's something marx wrote. basically it says people shouldn't be forced to do more work than they can handle comfortably, and that people should take/use only what they need, in order to save some for others.

re: "human nature" here's a response from left-wing guru chomsky in his interview with tom morello:

TM: Wow. Well another unquestionable idea is that people are naturally competitive, and that therefore, capitalism is the only proper way to organize society. Do you agree?

NC: Look around you. In a family for example, if the parents are hungry do they steal food from the children? They would if they were competitive. In most social groupings that are even semi-sane people support each other and are sympathetic and helpful and care about other people and so on. Those are normal human emotions. It takes plenty of training to drive those feelings out of peoples heads, and they show up all over the place.

It's true that you can say the humans are competitive, but humans are anything you like. Humans are mass murderers, humans are courageous and honorable and magnificent in many of the things that they do. The whole spectrum is there. Particular institutions and modes of education and so on bring out one or another characteristic of people. There has been a tremendous effort, its been going on for a couple of hundred years now, to try to emphasize particular traits, mainly, the sort of, "Look out for Number One" trait. Well that's sort of hidden there in all of us. I'm sure under certain circumstances it would probably come out along with others. But that's the tendency in human character that is enormously supported and amplified by institutional structures, by the propaganda system, by education, by the entertainment industry, by everything. So sure, people are naturally competitive, and they're naturally cooperative and eager to give up what they have for the benefit of others.

 

[loseyourname]

how about "from each according to their ability, to each according to their need"?

there was a poll done where a majority of americans thought that statement was in the US constitution somewhere, but really it's something marx wrote. basically it says people shouldn't be forced to do more work than they can handle comfortably, and that people should take/use only what they need, in order to save some for others.

In the rare circumstance that a person is completely incapable of doing the work necessary to provide for himself, he has family to help him out, as Chomsky adroitly noted below. In the rarer still circumstance that he has no family, we do have safety nets. As long as these aren't abused, so be it.

The idea that people should take/use only what they need in order to save some for others is inherently unfair, as has been pointed out. Humans have wants in addition to their needs, and when they work hard to fill these wants, they deserve to be able to fill them. They don't deserve to have to sacrifice in order to make up for the lack of work done by someone else.

re: "human nature" here's a response from left-wing guru chomsky in his interview with tom morello:

Chomsky displays a glaring ignorance of the origins of human behavior in that little snippet there. Of course humans are cooperative within their own family. Any social animal is, as doing so will promote the propogation of one's own genes. Once you get beyond family, the feeling dies quickly, and it should be rather obvious to anyone that has observed any human behavior whatsoever that most people are not going to be willing to just voluntarily give up whatever they don't absolutely need to help a complete stranger that has done little to demonstrate that he deserves that help. Cooperative behavior within a community and sacrifice of any luxury to the good of an entire state system are two completely different things. The latter is found absolutely nowhere in nature.

Since when do guitarists conduct interviews?

 

[so-crates]

In the rare circumstance that a person is completely incapable of doing the work necessary to provide for himself, he has family to help him out, as Chomsky adroitly noted below. In the rarer still circumstance that he has no family, we do have safety nets. As long as these aren't abused, so be it.

Then why are there so many homeless, especially families?

The idea that people should take/use only what they need in order to save some for others is inherently unfair, as has been pointed out. Humans have wants in addition to their needs, and when they work hard to fill these wants, they deserve to be able to fill them. They don't deserve to have to sacrifice in order to make up for the lack of work done by someone else.

So are you opposed to all forms of social welfare? I though t you just said you weren't opposed to these "safety nets".

Chomsky displays a glaring ignorance of the origins of human behavior in that little snippet there.

So I suppose we should believe your little snippet instead of Chomsky's.

Of course humans are cooperative within their own family. Any social animal is, as doing so will promote the propogation of one's own genes. Once you get beyond family, the feeling dies quickly, and it should be rather obvious to anyone that has observed any human behavior whatsoever that most people are not going to be willing to just voluntarily give up whatever they don't absolutely need to help a complete stranger that has done little to demonstrate that he deserves that help.

Yeah, no one would do anything like put their nation ahead of familiy, or volunteer to fight in a war occurring in a distant place. Ain't going to happen. Oh wait...

Cooperative behavior within a community and sacrifice of any luxury to the good of an entire state system are two completely different things. The latter is found absolutely nowhere in nature.

There are several counterexamples to this, which should be apparent to anyone who has studied history. Males aged 18-35 have often been asked to sacrifice their safety, much less their luxuries, for the "good of the state". Some have even volunteered.

Since when do guitarists conduct interviews?

Probably for as long as rock guitarists have been going to Harvard :-)

 

[loseyourname]

Then why are there so many homeless, especially families?

For one, the existing safety nets aren't good enough. Offering people money when what they really need is mental healthcare and job training isn't going to do the trick.

So are you opposed to all forms of social welfare? I though t you just said you weren't opposed to these "safety nets".

When did I say that I was opposed to all forms of social welfare?

So I suppose we should believe your little snippet instead of Chomsky's.

I'm no expert, but I've certainly studied as much behavioral biology as the average linguist.

There are several counterexamples to this, which should be apparent to anyone who has studied history. Males aged 18-35 have often been asked to sacrifice their safety, much less their luxuries, for the "good of the state". Some have even volunteered.

Getting people caught up in the often mythical notion that they are fighting heroicly for something bigger than themselves is a little different than working your ass off only to give away half your check to someone working half as hard, no?

Probably for as long as rock guitarists have been going to Harvard :-)

I wasn't aware that a degree in Social Sciences qualified one as a journalist. Then again, it's hard to see what exactly "qualifies" a person as a journalist.

 

[russ_watters]

Chomsky displays a glaring ignorance of the origins of human behavior in that little snippet there.

Ya know, ignorance just plain doesn't cut it anymore. Chomsky is smart enough (and I'm getting tired of people telling me how good a writer he is - as if that has any effect on how good his ideas are ) to know the flaws in his ideas. I'm sure everyone who has ever disagreed with him has pointed them out - they are the same obvious flaws that have been well understood since soon after Marx did his work. Choosing to ignore and/or mislead about these flaws just makes Chomsky appear dishonest. I'm not a big fan.

I'm no expert, but I've certainly studied as much behavioral biology as the average linguist.

I keep forgetting Chomsky is a linguist. He's not even a real political scientist. Are people simply blinded by his writing skill? Is that why people continue to pay attention? Don't people see the danger (and rediculousness) in following someone just because he's charismatic and well spoken?

 

[fourier jr]

I keep forgetting Chomsky is a linguist. He's not even a real political scientist. Are people simply blinded by his writing skill? Is that why people continue to pay attention? Don't people see the danger (and rediculousness) in following someone just because he's charismatic and well spoken?

here's chomsky's response to that:

“In my own professional work I have touched on a variety of different fields. I've done my work in mathematical linguistics, for example, without any professional credentials in mathematics; in this subject I am completely self-taught, and not very well taught. But I've often been invited by universities to speak on mathematical linguistics at mathematics seminars and colloquia. No one has ever asked me whether I have the appropriate credentials to speak on these subjects; the mathematicians couldn't care less. What they want to know is what I have to say. No one has ever objected to my right to speak, asking whether I have a doctor's degree in mathematics, or whether I have taken advanced courses in the subject. That would never have entered their minds. They want to know whether I am right or wrong, whether the subject is interesting or not, whether better approaches are possible - the discussion dealt with the subject, not with my right to discuss it.
But on the other hand, in discussion or debate concerning social issues or American foreign policy, Vietnam or the Middle East, for example, the issue is constantly raised, often with considerable venom. I've repeatedly been challenged on the grounds of credentials, or asked, what special training do you have that entitles you to speak of these matters. The assumption is that people like me, who are outsiders from a professional standpoint, are not entitled to speak on such things.
Compare mathematics and the political sciences -- it's quite striking. In mathematics, in physics, people are concerned with what you say, not with your certification. But in order to speak about social reality, you must have the proper credentials, particularly if you depart from the accepted framework of thinking. Generally speaking, it seems fair to say that the richer the intellectual substance of a field, the less there is a concern for credentials, and the greater is concern for content.”

 

[Artman]

If Chomsky is right about human nature and communisim, how come it keeps failing? It's like aether, it ought to be there, but it ain't.

 

[Polly]

here's chomsky's response to that:

Great Post.

 

[Smurf]

If Chomsky is right about human nature and communisim, how come it keeps failing? It's like aether, it ought to be there, but it ain't.

Foolishness, Communism doesn't keep failing. It's never been tried in the first place, so it couldn't have failed could it!

Or if you insist that it has and is being tried, are you not aware that china is considered a rising superpower and it could possibly eclipse or surpass US power?

Perhapse you believe that Communism has been tried but China isn't one of the states that is Communist? Perhapse you need to examine history a little closer and re-read some of the works about communism in the first place, such as the communist manifesto for example. Communism is not a form of government, it is not a kind of state or a different structure for ruling order, it is the end result of a long process that keeps getting interupted by the upper classes afraid they're not going to be better off than everyone else one of these days.

 

[Smurf]

I keep forgetting Chomsky is a linguist. He's not even a real political scientist. Are people simply blinded by his writing skill? Is that why people continue to pay attention? Don't people see the danger (and rediculousness) in following someone just because he's charismatic and well spoken?

Maybe we should all shut up about this then until we get our masters in political science yes? We all should be ashamed for having opinions in the first place when we havn't even been given a piece of paper by a recognised reeducation establishment endorsed by the state for the state... Hey, would that include you by any chance?

 

[Artman]

...Communism is not a form of government, it is not a kind of state or a different structure for ruling order, it is the end result of a long process that keeps getting interupted by the upper classes afraid they're not going to be better off than everyone else one of these days.

You contradicted yourself several times in this post. So communisim has been successfully implemented? Where? It keeps getting interrupted because of human nature. In other words it fails.

 

[russ_watters]

here's chomsky's response to that:

Interesting response, but he disproves his own point: "Mathematical linguistics" would appear to be right up his alley. He's not making speechs about Relativity or dark matter. If he were, those physicists and mathematicians would damn-sure care about his expertise on the subject. His characterization of the openness is quite simply wrong (consider some current discussions in the Relativity forum on the importance of credentials and working within the scientific mainstream).

Remember, people are citing him as an expert, so he'd better be one. Otherwise, citing him is a double-edged sword (at best): he's not an expert and neither am I, so therefore, my opinion is just as valid as his is. Therefore, citing him in a discussion does not help your argument - there is no reason why he should be right and I should be wrong.

Great Post.

I'm not sure if that's sarcasm, but if it is, I agree. While Chomsky's writing style is good, his arguments are just awful and that should be easy to see to anyone who isn't blinded by his eloquence. I'll say it again, more forcefully:

He's a hack. A fraud.

Foolishness, Communism doesn't keep failing. It's never been tried in the first place, so it couldn't have failed could it!

That is the common cop-out, but it quite simply isn't true (and we've had this discussion recently in the politics forum). It has been tried, most noteably by Lenin, but the problem is that conspicuously absent from Marx's theory is a method for and structure of a communist government. Therefore, it is left to people like Lenin and Stalin and Mao, and Ho to do their best to turn Marx's underdeveloped vision into a real system of government. And try as they might, they could not get it to function stable-ly.

Perhapse you believe that Communism has been tried but China isn't one of the states that is Communist?

I'm not sure what you mean - are you now saying that China is communist? Aren't you arguing against yourself (Artman noted other contradictions...)?

In fact, China has been attempting comunism for decades. And it doesn't work. In the past 10 years, China has made vast reforms away from communism, which are responsible for its current level of growth. Yes, China is another good example of the failure of communism and the triumph of capitalism.

Perhapse you need to examine history a little closer and re-read some of the works about communism in the first place, such as the communist manifesto for example.

Its been a while, but I have read it.

Communism is not a form of government, it is not a kind of state or a different structure for ruling order...

See above: that is the key structural flaw in Marx's work: he didn't make a theory that could easily be applied to a real government.

Combine that with the theoretical flaw that it doesn't take into account human nature, and that's a big, big problem. It shouldn't be at all surprising that despite the dozens of countries that have identified themselves as communist, none have succeeded in realizing Marx's vision.

edit: and with these two major flaws, it makes me wonder about Marx's credentials too. Its tough to see how he could miss them.

Maybe we should all shut up about this then until we get our masters in political science yes? We all should be ashamed for having opinions in the first place when we havn't even been given a piece of paper by a recognised reeducation establishment endorsed by the state for the state...

You utterly misunderstand the issue. I made a post on this very subject last night, but I'll explain it again:

A professor of mine (poly sci, as a matter of fact) once told my class that we were not allowed to have an original thought in his class and your first original thought could be expressed in your phd thesis. Imagine that?? Well here's what that means for those who feel like they just got slapped: it means that until you have studied a subject (any subject) for 8 years or so, you don't know enough about it to be an expert and as a result, you don't have the knowledge necessary to form new conclusions.

Hey, would that include you by any chance?

Of course! When have I ever claimed otherwise? In fact, if there is anything you should notice about my posts, its that when I make a new/unusual argument, I cite the source. In politics, it is, admittedly, more difficult since everyone thinks they are an expert (ie, Chomsky), but it is no different than the demands we make in the Relativity forum that arguments be supported with citations from certifiable experts.

Now, I do, occasionally have an original (I think) thought. But I'll quite openly admit that I don't have the expertise to vouch for their veracity. When I cite Locke, that's an expert opinon and should be taken as such. When I argue, as I did recently, that Stalin was a faithful Marxist, that's a product of my own head and you can take it or leave it.

I think a lot of people are afraid of their own ignorance. I'm not really sure why - no one can be an expert at everything. I quite freely admit that my half-dozen political science classes don't qualify me as an expert on the subject and I would never suggest that I was qualified to write a book or make speeches on the subject. I don't know why Chomsky is so arrogant to think he's different.

 

[Bartholomew]

Political opinions are vastly unlike scientific opinions in that politics is not a science. Common sense, independent reasoning is sufficient for political opinions, since they deal with common sense situations. There is no need for groupthink.

 

[Moonbear]

Getting people caught up in the often mythical notion that they are fighting heroicly for something bigger than themselves is a little different than working your ass off only to give away half your check to someone working half as hard, no?

I agree that's one way to look at it, but when you talk to people who have volunteered to fight in wars (not those who were drafted), listen to them being interviewed, etc., it often comes across that while they say they are doing it for the country, really they are doing it to preserve the way of life they have come to believe will be best for their children. Protecting your country also protects your family.

The limitation to communism is everyone has to buy into the idea or it falls apart. As soon as the government has to step in and decide who to take from and who to give to, the "communal" aspect is lost. It is something that works better on a very small scale, such as within small town, where everyone pulls together to help when someone else is in need, because they have a reasonable expectation they too will receive help when they are in need. On the scale of a country, the person who is in need is too far removed from the person who can give, and there is less to ensure one that reciprocity will occur if they give away what they have and find out they need it later.

Degrees of relatedness influence degrees of sacrifice in any social species. Parents will do more for their own offspring than for the offspring of their sibling, and will do more for the offspring of their sibling than for an unrelated individual. There are also all sorts of models for how reciprocity benefits unrelated individuals, but it always comes down to what is most likely to help the offspring (and genes) survive. But, if just one individual breaks the "rule" that there needs to be reciprocity, and takes without giving, the whole system falls apart. This doesn't happen as much in other animal species because they deal with such individuals quite swiftly either by driving them out of the social group or attacking and killing them. Humans have, generally, risen above this approach, and governments have stepped into prevent those individuals from being made outcasts of society, thus, it doesn't work very well for human society to engage in reciprocal relationships with someone too distantly related, because it isn't truly reciprocal.

(loseyourname may not be an expert in animal behavior, but he is a student of it, and from what I've seen, his posts on the subject have been consistently accurate. I'd trust what he has to say on the subject of animal behavior.)

 

[Bartholomew]

By the way, Marx wasn't advocating action to achieve communism. He felt it was the natural, inevitable next stage of social evolution. He provided no government system because he was not a communist in the modern sense of the word.

 

[russ_watters]

More on this:

Combine that with the theoretical flaw that it doesn't take into account human nature, and that's a big, big problem. It shouldn't be at all surprising that despite the dozens of countries that have identified themselves as communist, none have succeeded in realizing Marx's vision.

edit: and with these two major flaws, it makes me wonder about Marx's credentials too. Its tough to see how he could miss them.

Contrast Marx with the political theorists who are responsible for capitalism/democracy (Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau), and you'll see a key difference in the way the went about developing their theory: Marx was looking for a utopia and did not consider human nature, nor how his utopia could really work. For the other guys, it was virtually their entire point to examine politics/morality through the lens of human nature and after making a case on how human nature works to propose a system by which government can be compatible with it.

 

[russ_watters]

Political opinions are vastly unlike scientific opinions in that politics is not a science.

Tell that to your local university - they'll be quite dismayed to hear that Political Science is not a science.

Common sense, independent reasoning is sufficient for political opinions, since they deal with common sense situations.

Dunno - I still think in order to speak intelligently about a subject, you need some knowledge of it. How can you discuss the concept of nationalism, for example, without knowing its historical context, ie WWI, WWII, etc.? I don't think its at all reasonable to consider that someone who cites facts in their argument probably has a better argument than someone who just pulls their ideas out of the air.

There is no need for groupthink.

This, I probably need to clarify: citing experts does not mean you can't think for yourself. You can, its just that it should be blatantly obvious that anything you've ever thought of has been thought of by an expert as well. And since the expert has more knowledge of the subject, its likely he/she has thought it through more thoroughly. Pick and choose, find an expert who holds your opinion - but don't be so arrogant as to think that your original ideas are either original or particularly well thought-out.

 

[russ_watters]

I agree that's one way to look at it, but when you talk to people who have volunteered to fight in wars (not those who were drafted), listen to them being interviewed, etc., it often comes across that while they say they are doing it for the country, really they are doing it to preserve the way of life they have come to believe will be best for their children. Protecting your country also protects your family.

That is true - in the case of motivation for joining the military, there are two sides to the coin and it just so happens that both sides are complimentary - and neither supports Chomsky's position.

The limitation to communism is everyone has to buy into the idea or it falls apart. As soon as the government has to step in and decide who to take from and who to give to, the "communal" aspect is lost. It is something that works better on a very small scale, such as within small town, where everyone pulls together to help when someone else is in need, because they have a reasonable expectation they too will receive help when they are in need.

I have often heard that the absolute best place for communism is in a church. In a church, everyone is there by choice and everyone is there to achieve a common goal.

 

[Bartholomew]

That's right, political science is not a science. In a science you have the scientific method, and in particular you have testability. In political science you do not have these things. This is why anyone's opinion, reasonably supported, is about as valuable as any "expert's" opinion. Perhaps the expert's opinion is more polished--but you can provide supporting factual evidence for virtually any broad political thesis. In the absence of actual statistics, it's ultimately a matter of what seems more reasonable.

Of course, if a statistician came up with a political argument, then that would be something to listen to--and to discuss, because while statistics carry far more weight than "supporting facts," they are open to much interpretation.

 

[Joel]

A little bit about political science.

Political science is not a very homogenous field. I think it can be categorized both based on subject and methodology. The subjects range from policy analysis that try to rationalize public administration and policy implementation, to power theories of Machiavelli and Robert Dahl. It uses methodologies ranging from game-theory to discourse analysis and everything in between.

While pol. sci. isn't a natural science, it definitively is a science. Some of it's methods are used in natural sciences, others aren't - but its theories are most surely testable and falsifiable. The main difference to natural sciences is, naturally, the studied phenomenon. Natural sciences examine the world that is independent of us, while pol. sci. studies the 'social world', a reality dependant on humans.

Now, to touch on Russ's comment, since pol. sci. has our believes, values, identities, behavior, etc. in focus, everyone has most surely thought about those subjects. When I was fresh out of high school and began to study pol. sci. a big question for me was, when I should just respect the opinion of another and when I should argue against it? I didn't want to be seen as a trouble maker, but I wanted to tell about my newly acquired knowledge. Of course, sometimes I misunderstood things and sometimes I just used bits and pieces to support my personal opinion (Oh, and I most surely still do, even if I hope I don't do it quite as often!). Bottom line, having such a close connection to people's personal lives, pol. sci. findings are easy to confuse with opinions. However, that goes both for the one presenting the findings and the ones interpreting them.

Finally, here is Jurgen Habermas' classification of areas in which human interest creates knowledge. Depending on the study, political science could belong to anyone of them.

Work Knowledge

Work broadly refers to the way one controls and manipulates one's environment. This is commonly known as instrumental action -- knowledge is based upon empirical investigation and governed by technical rules. The criterion of effective control of reality direct what is or is not appropriate action. The empirical-analytic sciences using hypothetical-deductive theories characterize this domain. Much of what we consider 'scientific' research domains -- e.g. Physics, Chemistry and Biology are classified by Habermas as belonging to the domain of Work.

Practical Knowledge

The Practical domain identifies human social interaction or 'communicative action'. Social knowledge is governed by binding consensual norms, which define reciprocal expectations about behaviour between individuals. Social norms can be related to empirical or analytical propositions, but their validity is grounded 'only in the intersubjectivity of the mutual understanding of intentions'. The criterion of clarification of conditions for communication and intersubjectivity (the understanding of meaning rather than causality) is used to determine what is appropriate action. Much of the historical-hermeneutic disciplines -- descriptive social science, history, aesthetics, legal, ethnographic literary and so forth are classified by Habermas as belonging to the domain of the Practical.

Emancipatory Knowledge

The Emancipatory domain identifies 'self-knowledge' or self-reflection. This involves 'interest in the way one's history and biography has expressed itself in the way one sees oneself, one's roles and social expectations. Emancipation is from libidinal, institutional or environmental forces which limit our options and rational control over our lives but have been taken for granted as beyond human control (a.k.a. 'reification'). Insights gained through critical self-awareness are emancipatory in the sense that at least one can recognize the correct reasons for his or her problems.' Knowledge is gained by self-emancipation through reflection leading to a transformed consciousness or 'perspective transformation'. Examples of critical sciences include feminist theory, psychoanalysis and the critique of ideology, according to Habermas.

http://physicsed.buffalostate.edu/danowner/habcritthy.html

 

[Bartholomew]

Political "science"'s results are not falsifiable because you cannot set up controlled political experiments. If you were a god who did not care about what happened to each human in your experiments, then you could have political science as a real science. But since we cannot do that for practical and ethical reasons, political science as practiced by humans is not science.

 

[russ_watters]

Excellent post, Joel. Thanks for the expansion.

 

[Bartholomew]

Russ...