Communism Outside The Gulag

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

  1. Rigby5
    Offline

    Rigby5 VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2017
    Messages:
    327
    Thanks Received:
    45
    Trophy Points:
    68
    Location:
    New Mexico
    Ratings:
    +147
    That is pretty much totally wrong.

    {... 1. Which stem from the works of Karl Marx? ...}
    Actually none of them do, since Karl Marx only refers to communism, but since communism already existed, such as during the French Revolution, it could not stem from Karl Marx.

    {... 2. Which is a form of command and control big government? ...}
    Obviously none of them do, since they tend to be either economic systems or simply factions, so have very little to do with any scale description of government or totalitarianism.

    {... 3. Which has no problem with genocide, actual or figurative, as an accepted procedure on its political enemies? ....}
    And again obviously none of them, because things like genocide are a question of ethical values, and have nothing to do with economics or politics.

    {... 4. Which is based on the collective over the individual? ...}
    Since you are trying to group them all together, and clearly Nazism, Communism, Socialism, and Fascism tend to have collective concerns while liberalism and progressivism are strictly oriented on the rights of individuals, the conflict is again obvious.

    {... 5. Which oppresses and/or slaughters its own citizens as pro forma (including depriving them of a living)..}
    Clearly only fascism and nazism have deliberately done this. Russia and China were state capitalism and never communist, and even they did not intend massive starvation, but were merely incompetent.

    {...6. Which represents totalitarian governance? ...}
    Nazism, communism, socialism, and fascism are economic systems, so have nothing really do to with governance, which is political decision making mechanisms. And while liberalism and progressivism are related to governance, they are the opposite of totalitarianism, and closer to anarchism.

    (...7. Which believes that mandating/dictating every aspect of their citizen's lives is their prerogative? ...}
    This is just a repetition of 6 really.

    {...8. Which aims for an all-encompassing state that centralizes power to perfect human nature by controlling every aspect of life. ...}
    Only Fascism and Nazism approach a strong central state power.

    {... 9. Which restricts free speech and thought? ...}
    Again, only Fascism and Nazism try to influence individual liberty. Liberalism and Progressivism are the exact opposite.

    {...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 again, this is just a refinement of 9.
     
  2. Rigby5
    Offline

    Rigby5 VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2017
    Messages:
    327
    Thanks Received:
    45
    Trophy Points:
    68
    Location:
    New Mexico
    Ratings:
    +147
    You know that the Native Americans certainly knew all about capitalism.
    The MezoAmericans like Aztecs and Incas obviously were capitalistic when the Europeans arrived. But North Americans had gone through a capitalist phase that failed, and they rejected. It left remnants like the Mound Builders, the Mississippians, Anasazi, etc. It just does not work well when technology is primitive and resources limited.
     
  3. Rigby5
    Offline

    Rigby5 VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2017
    Messages:
    327
    Thanks Received:
    45
    Trophy Points:
    68
    Location:
    New Mexico
    Ratings:
    +147

    Not even remotely convinced.
    Kibbutzim still succeed in Israel, just as Ashrams still succeed in India.
    The massive materialism you describe is not normal for humans and instead is a product of European learned culture.
     
  4. alang1216
    Offline

    alang1216 Pragmatist

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2014
    Messages:
    4,595
    Thanks Received:
    402
    Trophy Points:
    130
    Location:
    Virginia
    Ratings:
    +1,427
    Europeans seem quite happy with their brand of socialism. The Norwegians seem quite happy to share their oil wealth.

    The US is another example. People seem pleased with Social Security and Medicare.

    I'd venture to say that every country that ever existed has aspects of capitalism, socialism, and communism to varying degrees. It never has been or ever will be an A, B, or C, it will always be D, all the above.
     
  5. PoliticalChic
    Offline

    PoliticalChic Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2008
    Messages:
    75,300
    Thanks Received:
    22,104
    Trophy Points:
    2,260
    Location:
    Brooklyn, NY
    Ratings:
    +46,377


    "That is pretty much totally wrong."

    Nothing I post is wrong in any way.



    {... 1. Which stem from the works of Karl Marx? ...}
    Actually none of them do, since Karl Marx only refers to communism, but since communism already existed, suh as during the French Revolution, it could not stem from Karl Marx."


    While the French Revolution ‘authorized’ the slaughter of any citizens who didn’t agree with the ‘general will’, both Hitler’s and Stalin’s theses stem from Marx.

    "Early socialists publically advocated genocide, in the 19th and 20th centuries. It first appeared in Marx's journal, Rheinishe Zeitung, in January of 1849. When the socialist class war happens, there will be primitive societies in Europe, two stages behind- not even capitalist yet- the Basques, the Bretons, the Scottish Highlanders, the Serbs, and others he calls 'racial trash,' and they will have to be destroyed because, being two stages behind in the class struggle, it will be impossible to bring them up to being revolutionary." George Watson, Historian, Cambridge University.

    a. "The classes and races, too weak to master the new conditions of life, must give way...they must perish in the revolutionary holocaust." Karl Marx, People's Paper, April 16, 1856, Journal of the History of Idea, 1981

    b. "Before Marx, no other European thinker publically advocated racial extermination. He was the first." George Watson.

    c."Hitler often stated that he learned much from reading Marx, and the whole of National Socialism is doctrinally based on Marxism." George Watson, Historian, Cambridge.

    d. "Socialists in Germany were national socialists, communists were international socialists." Vladimir Bukovsky.


    I'll allow you 3 out of ten points on this one.
    Not the most auspicious start on the exam.
     
  6. PoliticalChic
    Offline

    PoliticalChic Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2008
    Messages:
    75,300
    Thanks Received:
    22,104
    Trophy Points:
    2,260
    Location:
    Brooklyn, NY
    Ratings:
    +46,377

    {... 2. Which is a form of command and control big government? ...}
    Obviously none of them do, since they tend to be either economic systems or simply factions, so have very little to do with any scale description of government or totalitarianism.

    Zero

    {... 3. Which has no problem with genocide, actual or figurative, as an accepted procedure on its political enemies? ....}
    And again obviously none of them, because things like genocide are a question of ethical values, and have nothing to do with economics or politics.

    Zero


    {... 4. Which is based on the collective over the individual? ...}
    Since you are trying to group them all together, and clearly Nazism, Communism, Socialism, and Fascism tend to have collective concerns while liberalism and progressivism are strictly oriented on the rights of individuals, the conflict is again obvious.

    Zero

    Perhaps you'd like to offer this bit of offal to the bakers who where fined $135,000 for declining to bake a cake.

    Egad, have you been in a closet your whole life?????


    I hope you do better on the rest of the test.
     
    Last edited: Jan 27, 2018
  7. PoliticalChic
    Offline

    PoliticalChic Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2008
    Messages:
    75,300
    Thanks Received:
    22,104
    Trophy Points:
    2,260
    Location:
    Brooklyn, NY
    Ratings:
    +46,377



    {... 5. Which oppresses and/or slaughters its own citizens as pro forma (including depriving them of a living)..}
    Clearly only fascism and nazism have deliberately done this. Russia and China were state capitalism and never communist, and even they did not intend massive starvation, but were merely incompetent.

    Zero


    {...6. Which represents totalitarian governance? ...}
    Nazism, communism, socialism, and fascism are economic systems, so have nothing really do to with governance, which is political decision making mechanisms. And while liberalism and progressivism are related to governance, they are the opposite of totalitarianism, and closer to anarchism.
    Zero


    (...7. Which believes that mandating/dictating every aspect of their citizen's lives is their prerogative? ...}
    This is just a repetition of 6 really.

    Zero



     
  8. PoliticalChic
    Offline

    PoliticalChic Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2008
    Messages:
    75,300
    Thanks Received:
    22,104
    Trophy Points:
    2,260
    Location:
    Brooklyn, NY
    Ratings:
    +46,377
    {...8. Which aims for an all-encompassing state that centralizes power to perfect human nature by controlling every aspect of life. ...}
    Only Fascism and Nazism approach a strong central state power.

    {... 9. Which restricts free speech and thought? ...}
    Again, only Fascism and Nazism try to influence individual liberty. Liberalism and Progressivism are the exact opposite.

    {...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 again, this is just a refinement of 9.


    And.....three more zeros.


    You are truly an embarrassment as a student....although, for government schooling, indoctrination....you are the poster child.



    Your remediation begins immediately....with Powers' book.


    I'm certain that a nice adult will help you get a library card.

    [​IMG]
     
  9. PoliticalChic
    Offline

    PoliticalChic Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2008
    Messages:
    75,300
    Thanks Received:
    22,104
    Trophy Points:
    2,260
    Location:
    Brooklyn, NY
    Ratings:
    +46,377


    Read more carefully this time, you dunce:

    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.
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    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 onlyunder 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.
     
  10. PoliticalChic
    Offline

    PoliticalChic Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2008
    Messages:
    75,300
    Thanks Received:
    22,104
    Trophy Points:
    2,260
    Location:
    Brooklyn, NY
    Ratings:
    +46,377
    "Not even remotely convinced.
    Kibbutzim still succeed in Israel, ..."

    You represent the typical cannon fodder turned out by government schooling: the indoctrination is indelible.

    You are too weak and too lazy to break out of it.

    These six are, each and every one, based on bending the knee and the neck to the collective:
    Socialism, Progressivism, Communism, Liberalism, Fascism and Nazism.

    None are based on this:
    1. In Thoreau’s On the duty of Civil Disobedience, he states: “ There will never be a really free and enlightened State until the State comes to recognize the individual as a higher and independent power, from which all of its own power and authority are derived.”

    You haven't read that, have you.
    That's your next assignment.


    2. The kibbutz movement ended when individualism became more important than the collective.

    "The kibbutz movement continued to thrive both economically and socially through the 1960s and ’70s. In 1989, the population of Israel’s kibbutzim reached its peak at 129,000 people living on 270 kibbutzim, about 2 percent of Israel’s population.

    But high inflation and interest rates led to economic crisis for many kibbutzim. In the 1980s and ’90s, many kibbutzim declared bankruptcy and thousands of kibbutz members defected. In keeping with an increasing trend of individualism in Israel and world-wide, these former kibbutz members sought new opportunities in Israeli cities, and some left Israel altogether."
    The Kibbutz Movement | My Jewish Learning
     

Share This Page