Communism Outside The Gulag

Discussion in 'Writing' started by PoliticalChic, Jan 26, 2018.

  1. PoliticalChic
    Offline

    PoliticalChic Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2008
    Messages:
    75,273
    Thanks Received:
    22,098
    Trophy Points:
    2,260
    Location:
    Brooklyn, NY
    Ratings:
    +46,337
    You can’t have freedom without private property. Every time government issues a regulation that nibbles away at private ownership, it moves from liberty to tyranny, from capitalism to communism.

    But...there are some who imagine that socialism, communism, Liberalism, would take all of our worries away.
    They shrug at the 100 million slaughtered to prove it.



    One tends to think of the genocide of the Soviet Union when the concept is discussed, but the problems of communal rights have a more prosaic and daily consideration.


    1.In Mikhail Zoshchenko’s "A Summer Breather,” a short story about families having to live together in the ‘worker’s paradise,’ we get a truer picture of communism in action.



    “Getting your own individual little apartment is of course petty bourgeois pure and simple.
    People should live in harmony as a collective family, not lock themselves up in their domestic fortresses.
    People should live in communal apartments. Everything there's right out in the open. There's always someone to talk to. To ask for advice. To slug it out with.

    There are of course some minuses.
    The electricity, for example, can be a pain.
    You don't know how to figure the bill. Who pays what.
    Further on, of course, when our industry gets rolling, every tenant who wants to can put even two meters in every corner. Let the meters measure how much energy has been dispensed. Then, of course, life in our apartments will shine like the sun.


    Well, but for the time being it really is one big pain.


    For example, at our place there are nine families. One power line. One meter. At the end of the month it's time to fall in and pay up, and then, of course, there are some serious disagreements and now and again a punchfest.

    Well, all right, you say: figure it per light bulb.
    Well, all right, by the bulb. So one conscientious tenant turns on the light for maybe five minutes to get undressed or catch a flea. But another tenant sits there with the light on chomping away on something until midnight. And he won't turn it off. Although it's not like he's doing ornamental design or something.

    And then there's a third one, an intellectual no doubt, who will stare at a book to literally one in the morning or later with no thought to the overall situation.
    And maybe he'll even take out the bulb and put in a brighter one. And study his algebra like it's the middle of the day.
    And maybe that same intellectual will even shut himself up in his lair and boil water or cook macaroni on a hot plate. This is what you have to understand!

    There was one tenant at our place—a mover by trade—who literally went off his rocker on account of all this. He stopped sleeping at night and was constantly trying to find out who was studying algebra and who was heating up food on hotplates. And that was the end of him. Off his rocker.”



    Do you still wish Bernie Sanders had won????
     
    • Winner Winner x 3
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
    • Informative Informative x 1
  2. PoliticalChic
    Offline

    PoliticalChic Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2008
    Messages:
    75,273
    Thanks Received:
    22,098
    Trophy Points:
    2,260
    Location:
    Brooklyn, NY
    Ratings:
    +46,337
    Whenever I post this sort of attack on the pillars of Liberalism, I hope there is some sort of intelligent disagreement….you know, debate in the marketplace of ideas.

    Alas, there hardly ever is.



    Soooo….let me propose an answer, suggest where socialism does work. ,


    2. Want to know where communal, living works out?

    “…communal property has not been the undoing of the traditional family, even though nonproductive children enjoy a free ride at t expense of their parents….Family ties are strong enough to defuse the sense of injustice that is so corrosive when free riding occurs in more distantly related groups.

    Small children are, in any event, helpless, and parents don’t mind being ‘exploited’ by them.

    Even so, parental policing becomes indispensable as children grow up. Furthermore, families are small enough to make such policing possible. In a family of four with two children, there is one cop per potential robber.”
    Tom Bethell, “The Noblest Triumph,” p.45



    Don’t worry….Uncle Bernie won’t be living with you…..He’ll have his own dacha.
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  3. sedwin
    Offline

    sedwin Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2017
    Messages:
    271
    Thanks Received:
    23
    Trophy Points:
    33
    Ratings:
    +131
    And attacks on the "pillars" of conservatism?" Communism is the extreme result of liberalism whereas fascism is the extreme result of conservatism. Was Stalin evil? Yes. Were Hitler and Mussolini evil? Yes. The lesson is if you are FAR right or left you are on the path to evil.
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  4. PoliticalChic
    Offline

    PoliticalChic Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2008
    Messages:
    75,273
    Thanks Received:
    22,098
    Trophy Points:
    2,260
    Location:
    Brooklyn, NY
    Ratings:
    +46,337


    1."And attacks on the "pillars" of conservatism?"
    Gads, you are a moron.....can't you even spell 'Liberalism'?????


    2."fascism is the extreme result of conservatism."
    Of course it isn't.

    There are so very many errors in what passes for 'thinking' in your case that one hardly knows where to begin.

    Let's begin with definitions.
    Nazism, communism, socialism..Liberalism, Progressivism,.and fascism....


    Here is a little quiz that will show just how truly ignorant you are:




    1. Which stem from the works of Karl Marx?
    2. Which is a form of command and control big government?
    3. Which has no problem with genocide, actual or figurative, as an accepted procedure on its political enemies?
    4. Which is based on the collective over the individual?
    5. Which oppresses and/or slaughters its own citizens as pro forma (including depriving them of a living)....?
    6. Which represents totalitarian governance?
    7. Which believes that mandating/dictating every aspect of their citizen's lives is their prerogative?
    8. Which aims for an all-encompassing state that centralizes power to perfect human nature by controlling every aspect of life

    9. Which restricts free speech and thought?

    10. Which can be summed up in Hegel's “The state says … you must obey …. The state has rights against the individual; its members have obligations, among them that of obeying without protest”



    And, of course, they all are do...they are all consubstantial.

    They are all the same in their ultimate plan for society: a totalitarian regime with the peons marching lock-step.



    Nazism

    Communism

    Socialism

    Fascism

    Progressivism

    Liberalism



    Communism and Nazism and Fascism are all forms of socialism.....as is modern Liberalism...and Progressivism






    How about pointing out which of them are defenders of religious, political, and economic freedom, and recognize the individual as the most important element of society?
    Right....none of 'em.
    Only right wing philosophies...i.e., conservatism.





    You're a government school grad, huh?


    3.One more thing, you dolt.....there is no Far Right in this country....only a Far Left
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  5. sedwin
    Offline

    sedwin Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2017
    Messages:
    271
    Thanks Received:
    23
    Trophy Points:
    33
    Ratings:
    +131
    So cute that in your opening sentence you claim I cannot spell "liberalism" while using quotation marks incorrectly. Seriously, funny. I would comment on EVERYTHING else you wrote, but this is an Internet forum. If I wanted to read a book, I would read a book. Luckily, I have zero interest in reading a book on the lunatic ravings of a partisan hack.
     
  6. PoliticalChic
    Offline

    PoliticalChic Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2008
    Messages:
    75,273
    Thanks Received:
    22,098
    Trophy Points:
    2,260
    Location:
    Brooklyn, NY
    Ratings:
    +46,337




    You wrote "...I have zero interest in reading a book..."
    Truer words where never written



    You can run but you can't hide.
    So saith the Brown Bomber


    Your ignorance is on display.

    You're dismissed.
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
    Last edited: Jan 26, 2018
  7. PoliticalChic
    Offline

    PoliticalChic Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2008
    Messages:
    75,273
    Thanks Received:
    22,098
    Trophy Points:
    2,260
    Location:
    Brooklyn, NY
    Ratings:
    +46,337
    3. A great, if unmentioned, benefit of European settlement of America was the bringing of the concept of capitalism to the Indians, stone age peoples of the continent.

    …prior to the arrival of the colonials, American's prior colonists, the Indians had no concept of private property, and it's meaning in advancing the liberty and prosperity of all.

    Exploration and settlement by Europeans changed all that.



    Indians had no concept of private property:

    "One popular history of Manhattan notes that the Canarsie Indians "dwelt on Long Island, merely trading on Manhattan, and their trickery [in selling what they didn't possess to the Dutch] made it necessary for the white man to buy part of the island over again from the tribes living near Washington Heights. Still more crafty were the Raritans of [Staten Island], for the records show that Staten Island was sold by these Indians no less than six times."
    The Straight Dope How much would the 24 paid for Manhattan be worth in today s money


    1626 Peter Minuit purchased the island of Manhattan from the Canarsee Native Americans on May 24, 1626. However, the Canarsee were actually native to Brooklyn, while Manhattan was home instead to the Weckquaesgeek,(Wappnai) who were not pleased by the exchange and later battled the Dutch in Kieft's War. Peter Minuit (1589-1638)



    And because they had no concept of private property, Indians regularly killed the animals that they hunted to the point of extinction.
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  8. Rigby5
    Offline

    Rigby5 VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2017
    Messages:
    327
    Thanks Received:
    45
    Trophy Points:
    68
    Location:
    New Mexico
    Ratings:
    +147
    Of course you can have freedom without private property.
    In any family, is there any private property really?
    Does each person have to own their own TV, couch, table chair, etc.?
    Of course not.
    When you have use of all the communally owned property, then you don't need to personally own any.
    That is what many tribes, religious orders, clubs, organizations, etc., have always done.

    The only problem comes up with someone who is greedy tries to prevent others from having access to what they need.
    It is private property that often really is theft.
    We inherently are/were hunter/gatherers, and by claiming land ownership over land we did not create, we are harming hunter/gatherers.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  9. PoliticalChic
    Offline

    PoliticalChic Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2008
    Messages:
    75,273
    Thanks Received:
    22,098
    Trophy Points:
    2,260
    Location:
    Brooklyn, NY
    Ratings:
    +46,337
    4. Here, on this continent, it was the arrival of the Europeans that induced the Indians to give up communal property rights for private property rights.



    “In his article “Towards a theory of property rights” Harold Demsetz shows by a historic example of the Montagnes Indians the impact of private property. It demonstrates the different behaviours in cases with and without private property rights, how private property solves negative externalities and the role of coordination by changing individuals’ behaviour.

    The Montagnes Indians had no restrictions on hunting (=> open-access common property good).

    when the colonists started in the 18th century to inquire beaver furs from the Indians, the value of the beaver increased to such an extent, that the onset of intensification of hunting led to a decline in the beaver population (= negative externality).

    Everyone hunted as much as he could and nobody cared about the sustainability of the beaver population. The benefit/revenue of each animal was individual for the hunter, but the costs of the stock decline had the community as a whole (= tragedy of the commons).

    The Montagnes Indians successfully solved the problem by the allocation of individual territories on the families (= exactly defined property right), so that individual incentives appeared to plan for the long term under consideration of the beaver population. Consequently the negative externality was remedied and the individuals’ behavior purposely changed by property rights (Demsetz, 1967: 351 – 354).” Property rights



    Need it be said that an established law, not the law of the jungle, is a corollary to private property rights?
    Except when Leftist take power, and do what the Nazis did to private property rights:

    "It is far more common to believe that it represented a form of capitalism, which is what the Communists and all other Marxists have claimed. The basis of the claim that Nazi Germany was capitalist was the fact that most industries in Nazi Germany appeared to be left in private hands.

    What Mises identified was that private ownership of the means of production existed in name only under the Nazis and that the actual substance of ownership of the means of production resided in the German government. For it was the German government and not the nominal private owners that exercised all of the substantive powers of ownership: it, not the nominal private owners, decided what was to be produced, in what quantity, by what methods, and to whom it was to be distributed, as well as what prices would be charged and what wages would be paid, and what dividends or other income the nominal private owners would be permitted to receive. The position of the alleged private owners, Mises showed, was reduced essentially to that of government pensioners."
    Why Nazism Was Socialism and Why Socialism Is Totalitarian


    Just like Liberalism.
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  10. PoliticalChic
    Offline

    PoliticalChic Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2008
    Messages:
    75,273
    Thanks Received:
    22,098
    Trophy Points:
    2,260
    Location:
    Brooklyn, NY
    Ratings:
    +46,337


    You should have read post #2, you would have appeared far brighter.


    This was said post:

    Whenever I post this sort of attack on the pillars of Liberalism, I hope there is some sort of intelligent disagreement….you know, debate in the marketplace of ideas.

    Alas, there hardly ever is.



    Soooo….let me propose an answer, suggest where socialism does work. ,


    2. Want to know where communal, living works out?

    “…communal property has not been the undoing of the traditional family, even though nonproductive children enjoy a free ride at t expense of their parents….Family ties are strong enough to defuse the sense of injustice that is so corrosive when free riding occurs in more distantly related groups.

    Small children are, in any event, helpless, and parents don’t mind being ‘exploited’ by them.

    Even so, parental policing becomes indispensable as children grow up. Furthermore, families are small enough to make such policing possible. In a family of four with two children, there is one cop per potential robber.”
    Tom Bethell, “The Noblest Triumph,” p.45
     
    • Winner Winner x 1

Share This Page