The New Appeal Of Communism

[jasonnfree]

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, 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.

Not a Communist. Just a delusional person. Then again Communism is a delusional way of life that has failed.

Capitalism has failed at times but was revived. The great depression. FDR actually saved capitalism. 2008 just before the elections, everything going to hell in a handbasket. The bailout with no strings attached. No bankers went to jail or were even called on the carpet by bush or Obama. Obama, the so called Marxist, staffed his administration with capitalists, wall streeters, or whatever you want to call them. Even kept Summers and Geithners on the payroll.

 

[Uncensored2008]

The entire concept of property rights and private property rights really came up during the Renaissance. Later religious elements promoted property rights through the bible, and we saw the Protestant work ethic emerge. Private property was equated with human rights in the late 17th century. The debate over human rights come to a boil in the 18th and 19th centuries as human rights become the subject of intense debate

Once again I both agree and disagree.

You are absolutely right that the Renaissance was the cradle of property rights, the shedding of feudal encumbrance. But I see Adam Smith, and Thomas Paine as the the men who defined rights and the link between property and civil rights in a modern sense.

We basically have 4 types of absolute property systems: one person within a group, a group within the group, sovereigns within the group and the whole group. The first two can reject as I’m sure you would agree. These would include monarchies, aristocracies, etc. The criminality and tyranny under these system are historical reality.

Yet the ultimate reality of what is promoted by the left is exactly this, that a group within a group, on behalf of the whole are the rightful owners of all - with individuals at best caretakers.

We have two left as the only examples for a fair and legitimate property system. We have the anarcho-capitalist system where people own 100% of their property and they can do with it as they wish in the alleged “free market”. But this will eventually recreate the first two systems so to speak, whereby rent collectors and business owners morph into aristocrats and monarchs of their own fiefdoms.

Fiefdoms require collusion of the crown. The reason that property owners generally cannot do as you suggest is the market. Nothing is a more poor investment than uninhabited space. Land lords seek to attract renters, this is a natural force pressuring prices down. Scarcity forces prices up. The struggle of the invisible hand adjusts market values.

We’ll have the problem of the nation state but on a much smaller scale. Decreasing the scale, however, makes this type of systems no less stable, corrupt or violent, and these systems have a long history of such problems.

The only system that is historically free of violence is free market property rights.
The system most nation states have chosen is group ownership. The entire group (representative government) owns all the property at the end of the day.

Individual citizens are allowed to own property in exchange for taxation and accepting certain responsibilities. A property system can range from market-based to complete socialism to a mixture of both.

That is not "owning" anything. What you advocate is that the government is owner of all property and might rent it to subjects. Only an owner or agent of the owner may collect rents on a property. If the county is charging you rent on your home - you are not the owner - regardless of what deeds you may hold.

In the end, at the end of the day, property ownership is based on force. People that refer to the right of ownership as negative rights are simply incorrect, since the entire concept of property is based on coercive denial of other people to use it. In our case, the US federal, state and local governments are the forces that protect and define our system of property in this country, whereby you and I can control the use of our property.

Yes and no. The federal government has no legitimate role in property except in cases involving interstate disputes.

The state and local governments are subject to laws enacted by popularly elected representatives. Brian earlier said he did not agree to a social contract - I disagree - the election of representatives is our consent to the social contract.

I’m glad you brought up Kelo since I’m actually not a fan of the ruling. No thread hijack

It's hardly a hijack, Kelo is the most important ruling on property rights in at least a century. A direct assault on the very notion of property rights.

 

[Uncensored2008]

From the OP onward you have been trying to establish a dichotomy where the "left" is, either by ignorance or malevolence, inclined to support communism and the "right" is staving off the left's lumbering assaults on liberty. The immediate difficulty I have with this dichotomy is that it requires a delineation between "right" and "left" that you have not provided.

In terms of 2014 America, the right is a tradition of support of the Republican ideals of Jefferson, et al. The right are the liberals, advocates of free markets and free individuals.

The left seeks a monolithic state that rules absolutely, dictating economic and social outcomes for the betterment (theoretically) of mankind. Totalitarianism is a necessity to the goals of the left.

I was wondering if you would clarify where you draw the line between "right" and "left". Does the "right" wing of politics, by your definition, support the Stanley v. Georgia decision?

Red herrings do no further your arguments. Obscenity laws have no bearing on this discussion.

Does the "right" wing of politics, by your definition, support the Lawrence v. Texas decision?

Another red herring.

These decisions are germane to the topic because they deal with the sovereign individual, privacy and property.

Far from germane to a discussion of Communism vs. Capitalism, you have offered a straw man.

I have noticed you have the words "Libertarian Radical" in your profile. Would you then be willing to exclude Rick Santorum from the ranks of the "right" and label him a "leftist"? How about John Ashcroft, is he "right" or "left"? How about Michele Bachmann, is she a leftist who will inflict the authority of the state on individuals or does she embrace all liberties of sovereign individuals? Who would remain in the ranks of the right after the right was purged of all those who would infringe on the basic freedoms of individuals?

The ideal of purges and orthodoxy to dogma are rightfully the domain of the left. I disagree with social conservatives - Libertarians in general do - when the discussion arises, these disagreements are examined.

Between the Libertarian Capitalists and the Socialist Authoritarians, there are areas where a John Ashcroft has more in common with the Authoritarian left than with the libertarian right. But this discussion is not one on social issues, it is one on markets and property rights, it is one of the resurgence of Communism as not only socially acceptable, but once again chic.

If you are going to establish a dichotomy between the authoritarian left and libertarian right, you need to draw a line that establishes said dichotomy and let all the pieces fall where they may. It is not enough to rely upon putative definitions.

I believe I have done exactly that.

Advocacy of free markets, individual sovereignty, civil and property rights on the right. Advocacy for central authoritarianism, central planning, centrally managed markets, and state mandated economic and social outcomes on the left.

 

[PoliticalChic]

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, 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.

Not a Communist. Just a delusional person. Then again Communism is a delusional way of life that has failed.

The book ' Capital in the 21st Century' by the French and Marxist economics professor Thomas Piketty..... rests on several mutually supporting principles:
 Social and economic mobility do not exist.
 Economic expansion does not exist.
 You are allowed to have money and property in the type and the amount the state is willing to allow.
 Being paid according to the values you bring to an organization is unfair.
 People will work just as hard for very little money as a lot of money.
Thomas Piketty, Wealth Inequality and Cargo Cult Economics | RedState

 

[Uncensored2008]

Silly of me to offer advice to the willfully ignorant.

Where did you offer advice to yourself?

 

[Uncensored2008]

Wonder why Jefferson dropped Locke's property thing in the Declaration of Independence and changed it to pursuit of happiness?

Pressure from what would turn into the Federalist faction. A fear of disenfranchising non-property owners, who were vital as volunteers in the Continental forces.

Why do you ask?

 

[Uncensored2008]

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, 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.

Not a Communist. Just a delusional person. Then again Communism is a delusional way of life that has failed.

I believe Piketty, like Mussolini before him, is trying to reform Marxism into a workable form. (Not that the global taxes promoted by Piketty are actually workable.) Piketty is a Communist, a self-declared Socialist who seeks a single global government. Marxism is an utter failure, and the dream of the left is to rescue Communism from it's own absurdity.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Capitalism has failed at times but was revived.

What an absurd contention.

The great depression. FDR actually saved capitalism.

Just in case anyone was tempted to take you seriously...

2008 just before the elections, everything going to hell in a handbasket. The bailout with no strings attached. No bankers went to jail or were even called on the carpet by bush or Obama. Obama, the so called Marxist, staffed his administration with capitalists, wall streeters, or whatever you want to call them. Even kept Summers and Geithners on the payroll.

And you think that is "Capitalism" at work?

Perhaps a fundamental education would aid in your understanding of the thread...

 

[PoliticalChic]

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, 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.

Not a Communist. Just a delusional person. Then again Communism is a delusional way of life that has failed.

Capitalism has failed at times but was revived. The great depression. FDR actually saved capitalism. 2008 just before the elections, everything going to hell in a handbasket. The bailout with no strings attached. No bankers went to jail or were even called on the carpet by bush or Obama. Obama, the so called Marxist, staffed his administration with capitalists, wall streeters, or whatever you want to call them. Even kept Summers and Geithners on the payroll.

Herein we find exactly the abysmal ignorance that the government schools aims to induce.


You get a gold star.....moron.

 

[PoliticalChic]

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, 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.

Not a Communist. Just a delusional person. Then again Communism is a delusional way of life that has failed.

I believe Piketty, like Mussolini before him, is trying to reform Marxism into a workable form. (Not that the global taxes promoted by Piketty are actually workable.) Piketty is a Communist, a self-declared Socialist who seeks a single global government. Marxism is an utter failure, and the dream of the left is to rescue Communism from it's own absurdity.

As is true of most Leftists, he knows not whereof he speaks.


....how accurate is Piketty's view of America's income inequality, i.e., lack of social and economic mobility, etc.?

"Far from having the 21st-century equivalent of an Edwardian class system, the United States is characterized by a great deal of variation in income: More than half of all adult Americans will be at or near the poverty line at some point over the course of their lives; 73 percent will also find themselves in the top 20 percent, and 39 percent will make it into the top 5 percent for at least one year. Perhaps most remarkable, 12 percent of Americans will be in the top 1 percent for at least one year of their working lives.


The top 1 percent,,.... is such an unstable group that it makes no sense to write, as so many progressives do, about what has happened to its income over the past ten year or twenty years, because it does not contain the same group of people from year to year.

... the turnover among the super-rich (the top 400 taxpayers in any given year) is 98 percent over a decade — that is, just 2 percent of that elusive group remain there for ten years in a row.

Data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics finds that among the allegedly privileged 1 percent, inherited wealth accounts for only 15 percent of household holdings, a smaller share than it does among middle-class families."
National Review Online | Print

 

[Kimura]

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, 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.

Not a Communist. Just a delusional person. Then again Communism is a delusional way of life that has failed.

I believe Piketty, like Mussolini before him, is trying to reform Marxism into a workable form. (Not that the global taxes promoted by Piketty are actually workable.) Piketty is a Communist, a self-declared Socialist who seeks a single global government. Marxism is an utter failure, and the dream of the left is to rescue Communism from it's own absurdity.

Piketty isn't a Communist, Marx didn't even have a large influence on him or his thinking. Capital focused on wealth and income equality.

 

[Kimura]

Capitalism has failed at times but was revived.

What an absurd contention.

The great depression. FDR actually saved capitalism.

Just in case anyone was tempted to take you seriously...

2008 just before the elections, everything going to hell in a handbasket. The bailout with no strings attached. No bankers went to jail or were even called on the carpet by bush or Obama. Obama, the so called Marxist, staffed his administration with capitalists, wall streeters, or whatever you want to call them. Even kept Summers and Geithners on the payroll.

And you think that is "Capitalism" at work?

Perhaps a fundamental education would aid in your understanding of the thread...

Capitalism is by far the best economic system, but it's not without its flaws, nor do markets, allegedly free or otherwise, always deliver superior results.

One of the problems with capitalism is that it's not structured to handle full employment. Basically, in a nutshell, all firms can't be profitable at the same time. This is one problem that comes to mind.

 

[Toro]

Depends what you mean by "full employment."

 

[Ropey]

Depends what you mean by "full employment."

Possibly the new appeal has lost the old appeal and has gained mass appeal.

 

[georgephillip]

Depends what you mean by "full employment."

Possibly the new appeal has lost the old appeal and has gained mass appeal.

"China's toxic air pollution resembles nuclear winter, say scientists
Air pollution now impeding photosynthesis and potentially wreaking havoc on country's food supply, experts warn."

China's toxic air pollution resembles nuclear winter, say scientists | Environment | theguardian.com

 

[dnsmith35]

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, 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.

Not a Communist. Just a delusional person. Then again Communism is a delusional way of life that has failed.

Capitalism has failed at times but was revived. The great depression. FDR actually saved capitalism.

Baloney! The only thing FDR did was extend the depression a few years. Had WWII and our wartime mobilization had not occurred, we would have continued the depression for a few more years.

2008 just before the elections, everything going to hell in a handbasket. The bailout with no strings attached. No bankers went to jail or were even called on the carpet by bush or Obama. Obama, the so called Marxist, staffed his administration with capitalists, wall streeters, or whatever you want to call them. Even kept Summers and Geithners on the payroll.

Obama did very little more to get us out of the great recession started by Clinton in 1997 and continued through Bush until the housing bubble crashed and caused the great recession. The following graph clearly shows the upswing in price/value (inflation) of home prices started in 1997, but Bush did nothing to slow it down, but rather continued the failed housing policies of Clinton. (and I voted for Clinton both times)

 

[jasonnfree]

Not a Communist. Just a delusional person. Then again Communism is a delusional way of life that has failed.

Baloney! The only thing FDR did was extend the depression a few years. Had WWII and our wartime mobilization occurred we would have continued the depression for a few more years.

2008 just before the elections, everything going to hell in a handbasket. The bailout with no strings attached. No bankers went to jail or were even called on the carpet by bush or Obama. Obama, the so called Marxist, staffed his administration with capitalists, wall streeters, or whatever you want to call them. Even kept Summers and Geithners on the payroll.

Obama did very little more to get us out of the great recession started by Clinton in 1997 and continued through Bush until the housing bubble crashed and caused the great recession. The following graph clearly shows the upswing in price/value (inflation) of home prices started in 1997, but Bush did nothing to slow it down, but rather continued the failed housing policies of Clinton. (and I voted for Clinton both times)

Or, not a communist but maybe a socialist. Still, I agree with a lot you say. However we're only given 3 choices who to vote for and they're not very good choices. Democrat, repub, or third party that doesn't have a chance.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

However we're only given 3 choices who to vote for and they're not very good choices. Democrat, repub, or third party that doesn't have a chance.

what is wrong with Republicans?? Do you dare try?

 

[usmcstinger]

Income Inequality is a tenet of Socialism and Communism. Add we are all in it together to the list.

The only time we are all in it together is the Warrior Ethos on the field of combat.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Income Inequality is a tenet of Socialism and Communism. Add we are all in it together to the list.

yes and liberals forget to mention that their policies made poverty or inequality worse. Once they attacked and destroyed the American family kids were too distraught to get a decent education and hold a decent job!