The New Appeal Of Communism

[bripat9643]

Possibly any new appeal for socialism stems from the fact that liberty and equality are conflicting values that can only be reconciled when human rights trump property rights?

Monthly Review | Popular Movements Toward Socialism

Property rights are human rights, numskull.

How did the conflict between property rights and human rights drive the American Revolution against British control of the colonial economy?

what conflict between property rights and human rights? Did you even read my previous post? Property rights are human rights.

 

[georgephillip]

Property rights are human rights, numskull.

How did the conflict between property rights and human rights drive the American Revolution against British control of the colonial economy?

what conflict between property rights and human rights? Did you even read my previous post? Property rights are human rights.

At the risk of feeding the troll, Troll, riddle me this: if the abrogation of a right of property is necessary to prevent a loss of human rights, is that abrogation justified?

 

[Sallow]

First off?

There's never been a communist country..it would never work.

Secondly? Communism is dead.

 

[georgephillip]

First off?

There's never been a communist country..it would never work.

Secondly? Communism is dead.

There are some Economists who say Communism has never been tried.

 

[hipeter924]

Neo-liberal economics is how you bring back state-communism and push people towards communism in general. All you need is short-term focused bankers, speculators, and a few corrupt or inept politicians and you can destroy all faith in capitalism. But if the political and economic elite wish to shoot themselves in the foot, then they should continue as they are doing - there would be nothing more satisfying for the false free market to implode in on itself and expose the fraud/pyramid scheme that is modern day 'free market' capitalism.

 

[bripat9643]

How did the conflict between property rights and human rights drive the American Revolution against British control of the colonial economy?

what conflict between property rights and human rights? Did you even read my previous post? Property rights are human rights.

At the risk of feeding the troll, Troll, riddle me this: if the abrogation of a right of property is necessary to prevent a loss of human rights, is that abrogation justified?

How many times do I have to explain this to you? Property rights are human rights. If you abrogate property rights, then you abrogate human rights. In fact, without property rights there are no other rights.

 

[bripat9643]

First off?

There's never been a communist country..it would never work.

Secondly? Communism is dead.

There are some Economists who say Communism has never been tried.

It has never been achieved. Millions of people have been killed in the attempt to implement it.

 

[georgephillip]

what conflict between property rights and human rights? Did you even read my previous post? Property rights are human rights.

At the risk of feeding the troll, Troll, riddle me this: if the abrogation of a right of property is necessary to prevent a loss of human rights, is that abrogation justified?

How many times do I have to explain this to you? Property rights are human rights. If you abrogate property rights, then you abrogate human rights. In fact, without property rights there are no other rights.

True or false?
Property rights represent interests of (legal) persons with respect to "things."
Human rights protect the interests of humans with respect to each other?

Which came first?
Human rights or property rights?

 

[georgephillip]

First off?

There's never been a communist country..it would never work.

Secondly? Communism is dead.

There are some Economists who say Communism has never been tried.

It has never been achieved. Millions of people have been killed in the attempt to implement it.

Stalin concentrated power in the hands of a few, turning communism into a totalitarian dictatorship instead of distributing power equally among the population. The richest 1% had the same political leverage there they have here.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

So pointing out the wealth and income inequality in the US and Europe since the 18th century makes one a Communist? .

No, just bitter and jealous.

 

[bripat9643]

At the risk of feeding the troll, Troll, riddle me this: if the abrogation of a right of property is necessary to prevent a loss of human rights, is that abrogation justified?

How many times do I have to explain this to you? Property rights are human rights. If you abrogate property rights, then you abrogate human rights. In fact, without property rights there are no other rights.

True or false?
Property rights represent interests of (legal) persons with respect to "things."
Human rights protect the interests of humans with respect to each other?

Which came first?
Human rights or property rights?

If I use a thing to bash your head in, is that exercising a property right?

alternatively, if I use a gun to hold you up and take your money (things), does that mean I haven't violated your rights?

 

[georgephillip]

How many times do I have to explain this to you? Property rights are human rights. If you abrogate property rights, then you abrogate human rights. In fact, without property rights there are no other rights.

True or false?
Property rights represent interests of (legal) persons with respect to "things."
Human rights protect the interests of humans with respect to each other?

Which came first?
Human rights or property rights?

If I use a thing to bash your head in, is that exercising a property right?

alternatively, if I use a gun to hold you up and take your money (things), does that mean I haven't violated your rights?

Is my head violating your property when you bash it in?
Is your gun a legal thing?
Are you getting any help?

 

[HelenaHandbag]

So pointing out the wealth and income inequality in the US and Europe since the 18th century makes one a Communist?

Piketty's book probably won't change the minds of ideologues and members of reactionary groups

Speaking of minds already made up, it seems to me that Piketty's repackaged Marxist views are pretty much right up your alley.

but it gave the public an ability to start a dialogue about a topic that was taboo. His work (and his colleagues) already validated what many of us already knew to be pretty concrete data. It's now OK to talk about it.

OK, any doubt that you are living in a dream world world completely of your own making, should be dispelled entirely with that preposterous phrase.

Taboo? Are you serious?

Progressives, Marxists and other tweed jacketed economic central planner ne'er-do-wells, have been bitching and moaning about wealthy people and wealth distribution since at least the Industrial Revolution.

Robber Barons!
The Money Trust!
Corporate Fat cats!
The 1%!

Additionally, America has had nearly half a century and more that $10 trillion of LBJ's dismally failed income/wealth redistribution scheme, known colloquially as the War on Poverty, yet all the career complainers can do is gripe about how much worse things are! Let me guess, you believe that failure is proof that even more central planning and redistribution is called for, right?

Methinks that you have mistaken the word taboo for a couple of other "t" words; tiresome and tedious.

As for Picketty, he comes off to me as the economic equal to Vince the Shamwow guy.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Possibly any new appeal for socialism stems from the fact that liberty and equality are conflicting values that can only be reconciled when human rights trump property rights?

Monthly Review | Popular Movements Toward Socialism

There can be no human rights without property rights.

This is the lesson of the 20th century.

 

[Avorysuds]

Did you just say the "free markets" under Bush?

The entire meltdown was based on Government intervention, there was nothing free about it unless that means Government gets to be the #1 player in the game.

 

[Uncensored2008]

First off?

There's never been a communist country..it would never work.

Secondly? Communism is dead.

Reading is FUNdamental.

"Communism as defined by Marx.."

 

[JakeStarkey]

Silly OP: it's not true.

Fascism, particularly in Eastern Europe and among the American far right, seems to be growing in appeal to the fringe elements.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Stalin concentrated power in the hands of a few, turning communism into a totalitarian dictatorship instead of distributing power equally among the population. The richest 1% had the same political leverage there they have here.

In fact it was Lenin who established a totalitarian dictatorship, as prescribed by Marx. Communist requires totalitarianism - LEFTISM requires authoritarianism. All leftist systems will be authoritarian, as people do not work for their own injury without others forcing them to.

The elite in America have nowhere the level of power that they did under the Communists.

 

[georgephillip]

Possibly any new appeal for socialism stems from the fact that liberty and equality are conflicting values that can only be reconciled when human rights trump property rights?

Monthly Review | Popular Movements Toward Socialism

There can be no human rights without property rights.

This is the lesson of the 20th century.

Bear with me.
Are you saying property rights supersede human rights?

 

[Uncensored2008]

Did you just say the "free markets" under Bush?

The entire meltdown was based on Government intervention, there was nothing free about it unless that means Government gets to be the #1 player in the game.

No, I said nothing of Bush advocating or supporting free markets. I simply pointed out that the failures of Bush are used to justify open assault on the concepts of free market economics.

Unfortunately, free market advocates have done a poor job explaining why the creation of mortgage backed securities is no a market principle, or why a truly free market would stop such schemes.

If we wish to win the hearts and minds of the populace, we must do a better job.