Essentially, it is the opposite of nationalism. Instead of identifying oneself as part of a nation, you identify oneself as part of the international workers. It is the abandonment of such petty ideas as racism and nationalism and patriotism in favour of such ideas as helping those around the world.

Now, I still think waving the Union Jack at an Oasis concert is cool!

Class divisions instead of the other kind.. what fun. So what actually changes?

He's right, you know. Human beings seem to have innate needs for 1) Classification of things into groups, 2) Setting themselves apart in some way, and 3) The accumulation of "stuff."

Changing these ideas will take thousands of years and a new, powerful religion, (which by its very nature will also be divisive) and probably nothing else would work. And you'll still have the differences between those who subscribe to the concept, and those who don't, right up to the bitter end.

------------------
Calvin: "No efficiency, no accountability... I tell you, Hobbes, it's a lousy way to run a Universe." -- Bill Watterson

What I believe needs to be done is that when we associate ourselves with a group, the group shouldn't be a small group, like blacks, whites, purples, Chinese, Uzbekistani, etc. but the entire human race. If we can extend the group we separate ourselves into to everyone, then the fear of the 'other', along with racism and the like will disappear because there will be NO 'other'.

I agree, that this will take a long time for this to happen. Too many of the fears that separate us are prevalent in too many people.

However, I don't think that groups automatically fear other groups. More often, groups will have conflicting ideals.

And the "human race" isn't a group, because there's no larger entity to define it.

------------------
With 17 hours of class, guess what I'm doing.

Or I can be upset with the concept that coporate profit is more important that the world that we live on. Screw the whales and the sea turtles if it means a bigger house for me. Ozone, schmozone...give me a bigger car. These are some of the things that are primary over being from Los Angeles. Moreover, the concept of human defined borders, rather new in the scheme of history, by necessity it provides an artifical "us vs. them" mentality further seperating, in a new world of global economics, that haves from the have nots.

Man does NOT need to identify with groups. You say this because it is all history has shown, but it does not make it true. I am sure that when man was hunched over, the International Committee of the Third International of Neanderthal Scientific Socialists was grunting about how we would one day walk erect!

Nationalism is not an all powerful force. Look back through man's history. "Americans" have only existed for about 130 years. Where were the French before Charlemagne? The English before Charles the Conquerer? German nationalism existed, but only vaguely (and it was based on a COMMON language) until Bismarck formed a new country. Austrians have existed only since WWII. Ukranian is a new term. Yugoslavian was a powerful term for decades. Before that, Europeans generally identified themselves with a king, or their lord. Before that, they were subjects of the Roman Empire, although not Roman.
NOTE ON RACISM: This is just general nationalism.

Now, as to First's comment, identifying oneselves amongst the proletariat and the bourgeoisie is more accurate. What do I have in common with Bill Gates? What do I have in common with the young black man from the inner city? The latter you can answer more than the former.

However, the goal of scientific socialism is to eventually eliminate classes. This will take time, much time, of course, but isn't it worth it? Imagine if people in the 1400s had not slowly pushed on the concept of how needless religion is? We would not be so close to the subjugation of religion? And what if no one had begun speaking out against slavery? Or feudalism? Or monarchies? Sure, we'll never have a socialist country in my life time, and classes will likely exist for centuries to come. But, if I can create a better life for others, than mine was worth it. Afterall, isn't that one of the main ideas behind revolutionary socialism? To help others?

Well, not really, but it's along the same line of thinking.

For communism to work, you have to completely subjugate ordinary human self-interest. You have to do that without exception for every human being. I have seen no trend in human history towards a lessening of the impulse toward self-interest. Anything you might point out as such is only a better understanding of how one's self interest can be expanded to one's "group".

Expanding one's "group" to include all humanity is quite impossible. I've noticed that people who claim to have done this don't seem to include others who disagree with them, so they haven't done it yet.

--Baloo

------------------
"If knowledge is power, then willful misinformation is the work of the Devil."
-- Barbara "the man who sought Liberty's talents" Mikkelson
http://members.tripod.com/~Bob_Baloo/index.htm