I am a millenial and a proud supporter of the American dream. Classical Liberalism prevails!
Why did communism fail
- Thread starter higs
- Start date
I am a millenial and a proud supporter of the American dream. Classical Liberalism prevails!
- MBTI
- INTJ
In the end I think what attracts so many here to the idea of socialism and communism is the idea that somehow things have been taken away from them by the people who already have money. Somehow they have manipulated the system to not only get their money but are actively working to keep them from having money themselves. Enter the fairytale. ..oh the government can give you everything thing you need. Theyll just take it and redistribute it and once they do this everything will be fair.
Some people are born into money. Some people earn it. Some people win it. Some people find it easy to make a ton more money once you already have money. A fewer number steal money.
Freedom is about shaping your life to get what you want. Its about shaping YOUR life, not other people's.
Liberals have made tremendous gains with the advent of the Internet. They havs been able to make themselves look like a towering group when in reality its all just smoke and mirrors. A small group of angry people... we see the violence they display at Trump rallies all the while tbey condem the military for fighting for our freedoms.
When they finally manage to start a civil war (and they will) they are going to find out just how small of a group they really are.
Some people are born into money. Some people earn it. Some people win it. Some people find it easy to make a ton more money once you already have money. A fewer number steal money.
Freedom is about shaping your life to get what you want. Its about shaping YOUR life, not other people's.
Liberals have made tremendous gains with the advent of the Internet. They havs been able to make themselves look like a towering group when in reality its all just smoke and mirrors. A small group of angry people... we see the violence they display at Trump rallies all the while tbey condem the military for fighting for our freedoms.
When they finally manage to start a civil war (and they will) they are going to find out just how small of a group they really are.
- MBTI
- .
- Enneagram
- .
I am not arguing for Communism, but I am arguing that most of us only use the definitions accepted by its detractors.
https://www.partiallyexaminedlife.com/2013/01/30/ep70-marx/
I also do not equate patriotism with adherence to a particular economic system.
It is my experience that the economic system we have is the one where the most vested interests have the most control.
Arguing that looking at the underpinnings of our system and contemplating what might work better is unpatriotic bastardizes the idea of freedom.
https://www.partiallyexaminedlife.com/2013/01/30/ep70-marx/
I also do not equate patriotism with adherence to a particular economic system.
It is my experience that the economic system we have is the one where the most vested interests have the most control.
Arguing that looking at the underpinnings of our system and contemplating what might work better is unpatriotic bastardizes the idea of freedom.
Last edited:
Sinny
Community Member
- MBTI
- INTP
- Enneagram
- 8w7
Do you disagree with this notion?
Do you disagree with this notion too?
Drastic over simplification, and a just wee bit of straw man if I'm not mistaken.
The whole monetary is system is one big scam, do you want to discuss the details?
That's your opinion.
How does this relate to the capitalism/socialism debate?
- MBTI
- INTJ
What I have type here is my opinion. I have have come to these conclusions through everything I have read and come to know. I believe everything I have said is easily supported by what information is available. But does this cover everyone and all possibilities? Nothing does.
Sinny
Community Member
- MBTI
- INTP
- Enneagram
- 8w7
Way to be avoidy lol.
- MBTI
- INTJ
brightmoon
Community Member
- MBTI
- INFJ
This has nothing whatsoever to do with the question about Why Communism failed, Its a response to [MENTION=8603]Eventhorizon[/MENTION]
Exactly. The money they have came from somewhere. Unless you are independently wealthy you have to sell your labour to survive. If they paid their employees decent wages, if they were willing to share what they earned with the people who made that possible, then there wouldn't be a problem, and no need for unions, or no need for labour regulations or maybe no need form liberalism or democratic socialism. If they were providing a safe workplace there wouldn't be a need for those regulations either. But that's isn't the case. People running things with the wealth get greedy and there is never enough money for them, so they cut corners, in all kinds of ways. Then people feel the need to fight back. Liberalism is about fairness and giving voice to those who don't have it, Its also about creating equality of opportunity for everyone. Are we the "angry ones? Yes we are angry about injustice. The difference is we aren't the ones blaming the most vulnerable, the recent immigrants and "the other" like the Muslims, we assign blame to those who have the power.
A small group of angry people? We are the majority, the majority that elected Obama - twice, not a small group. That violence you see at Trump rallies is created by Trump supporters lashing out at "the other" the immigrants, the blacks and whoever else they blame for the system that has failed them. Meanwhile the people with the massive money are laughing, laughing at you. laughing all the way to the bank. What about the military fighting those wars? The best way to honour them to make sure the reasons they are laying their lives on the line actually mean something.. Don't listen to the chickenhawks like Trump and Bush, who are too willing to use military force, but retreated when they were asked to serve.
Exactly. The money they have came from somewhere. Unless you are independently wealthy you have to sell your labour to survive. If they paid their employees decent wages, if they were willing to share what they earned with the people who made that possible, then there wouldn't be a problem, and no need for unions, or no need for labour regulations or maybe no need form liberalism or democratic socialism. If they were providing a safe workplace there wouldn't be a need for those regulations either. But that's isn't the case. People running things with the wealth get greedy and there is never enough money for them, so they cut corners, in all kinds of ways. Then people feel the need to fight back. Liberalism is about fairness and giving voice to those who don't have it, Its also about creating equality of opportunity for everyone. Are we the "angry ones? Yes we are angry about injustice. The difference is we aren't the ones blaming the most vulnerable, the recent immigrants and "the other" like the Muslims, we assign blame to those who have the power.
A small group of angry people? We are the majority, the majority that elected Obama - twice, not a small group. That violence you see at Trump rallies is created by Trump supporters lashing out at "the other" the immigrants, the blacks and whoever else they blame for the system that has failed them. Meanwhile the people with the massive money are laughing, laughing at you. laughing all the way to the bank. What about the military fighting those wars? The best way to honour them to make sure the reasons they are laying their lives on the line actually mean something.. Don't listen to the chickenhawks like Trump and Bush, who are too willing to use military force, but retreated when they were asked to serve.
Matt3737
Similes are like songs in love.
- MBTI
- INFJ
All property ownership is collectively owned.
If you own property, are you sovereign? Can you refuse to be taxed on your property? Can you freely kill another human being that resides on your property? No, because the collective ownership takes priority over your rights. Your rights and responsibilities are afforded to you by the social grouping you belong to.
Nobody truly owns anything.
The distinction between individual and collective ownership is moot. The only distinction worth noting is how and by whom such properties are actually managed because the social collective always delegates those rights and responsibilities to others either individually or to smaller groupings of people. For example, if it were required that a single piece of trash laying on the ground needs to be picked up and disposed of it would not require more than one person to do so. In fact, asking any more than is necessary to do a particular task becomes increasingly detrimental to accomplishing that task.
Communism, as proposed by Marx and Engels, was idealistically naïve because it inherently contradicted the characteristics of the state, class, and property ownership that defined the premises of their argument by believing it could accomplish a stateless, classless, and moneyless society. It's nonsense and always has been, but so is the idea of the individualistic society because it too is a contradiction.
All societies generally occupy some middle ground of individual and collective rights.
If you own property, are you sovereign? Can you refuse to be taxed on your property? Can you freely kill another human being that resides on your property? No, because the collective ownership takes priority over your rights. Your rights and responsibilities are afforded to you by the social grouping you belong to.
Nobody truly owns anything.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundle_of_rights
The distinction between individual and collective ownership is moot. The only distinction worth noting is how and by whom such properties are actually managed because the social collective always delegates those rights and responsibilities to others either individually or to smaller groupings of people. For example, if it were required that a single piece of trash laying on the ground needs to be picked up and disposed of it would not require more than one person to do so. In fact, asking any more than is necessary to do a particular task becomes increasingly detrimental to accomplishing that task.
Communism, as proposed by Marx and Engels, was idealistically naïve because it inherently contradicted the characteristics of the state, class, and property ownership that defined the premises of their argument by believing it could accomplish a stateless, classless, and moneyless society. It's nonsense and always has been, but so is the idea of the individualistic society because it too is a contradiction.
All societies generally occupy some middle ground of individual and collective rights.
sprinkles
Well-known member
- MBTI
- xxxx
[MENTION=4822]Matt3737[/MENTION]
Ownership allows enough sovereignty for the owner to make the property effectively useless to other people if they feel like it.
Sure ownership doesn't provide endless power but it does provide all the power worth having.
Edit:
For example you can't just walk into a Ford plant and start doing what you want. You can't really do anything meaningful there if you don't work there. Ownership of that property means a lot in practical terms.
Ownership allows enough sovereignty for the owner to make the property effectively useless to other people if they feel like it.
Sure ownership doesn't provide endless power but it does provide all the power worth having.
Edit:
For example you can't just walk into a Ford plant and start doing what you want. You can't really do anything meaningful there if you don't work there. Ownership of that property means a lot in practical terms.
Last edited:
Matt3737
Similes are like songs in love.
- MBTI
- INFJ
Not necessarily: http://www.yalelawjournal.org/article/the-right-to-destroy
Edit: My point being that whether we have that right or not is still determined by law. How much leeway on the matter may be different by jurisdiction, but it is still determined by jurisdictional authority. So your right to make something useless to others was still implicitly condoned beforehand by law.
If it wasn't, then you'd be liable for the destruction of property in a court of law.
Last edited:
sprinkles
Well-known member
- MBTI
- xxxx
You can forbid other people from arbitrarily using your property.
Matt3737
Similes are like songs in love.
- MBTI
- INFJ
This is likely the most basic right of property ownership, but it's not an absolute as there is the legal concept of confiscation. What constitutes 'arbitrary' may not necessarily always be in agreement between an individual and the law.
sprinkles
Well-known member
- MBTI
- xxxx
What matters here is that people own things enough that you need either employment or your own ownership to survive.
I don't have enough land to grow all the vegetables I want and I can't just use other people's land without permission. Ownership there is very important and I get absolutely no sense of collective ownership. Other people's land is useless to me if I want to do anything besides work for somebody else, or hope they produce what I want from their property.
Matt3737
Similes are like songs in love.
- MBTI
- INFJ
I don't follow what you're trying to get across to me. My original point was that there is a balance between individual and collective rights of ownership, so I'm not trying to refute the idea that individual ownership rights are unimportant. I'm simply trying to keep all your points in balance by expressing its counterpoint.
You are right that you cannot use others' land without permission, but at the same time that right has been collectively agreed upon (however accomplished it is never by an individual acting alone; even a tyrant has to have social support to maintain power) and enacted into law so that you have such a right to your own property and those to their own. These rights are in a sense collectively distributed to us all.
Human beings are social animals. The individual is an inherent part of the group (a group is just an abstract collection of individuals and doesn't physically exist apart from its constituents), but the social group has throughout history both sustained and subdued the individual.
The agricultural revolution is oftentimes considered a huge setback for the general wellbeing of the human species due to settling in the squalor of our own filth, disease, and the filth of their domestic animals, but because they could outnumber the fewer and healthier nomadic groups it ended up being the cultural norm.
Yes. Individual rights are very important. The group will fall apart if it can not adequately sustain and maintain its constituents, but they never take precedence over the group.
- MBTI
- .
- Enneagram
- .
I just talked to a delivery driver who told me that his company (which is in 5 states) does not offer health insurance but that it didn't matter to him because he was a vet and got insurance through the VA to which I responded, "Well that's not Socialism".
Of course I think it is, but know that many would disagree.
Of course I think it is, but know that many would disagree.
