"There has never been true communism."

[FlashDangerpants]

While we wait for Henry to tell us what true libertarian natural rights minarchy actually is, I guess quicky ...

If we take the Soviet Union and call that true-enough-communism. Ity didn't work because it didn't have enough salesmen in the end. There was no information or incentive linking any market except the military to any producer. So they made half as many fridges and cars and so on as there was demand for, and everyone accepted whatever fridge or car they could get their hands on even though it was totoal shit and not the product the market would actually have selected for at all. And in the end, having shortages of basic commodities results in corruption and decay.

Notional True Communism has never happened, and never will happen because it is based on a set of flawed conceptions of both capitalism (which lacks the weaknesses Marx perceived) and liberal democracy (which is more adaptive by far than Marx supposed). The historical forces he believed would bring about communism and then the end of history just aren't there and they won't do what he imagined.

[henry quirk]

So, your minarchist night watchman state, that's also never been tested, right?

as a natural rights libertarian minarchy is just folks bein' free, I think, as I say up-thread, every time you witness someone self-directin', bein' self-responsible, or see folks interactin' freely respectin' each other's ownness, you're seein' my natural rights libertarian minarchy playin' out

You are so absolutely contradictory I find this completely amusing.

Your little, so called, "natural right libertarian minarchy world" is no more less of a 'dictorialship world' than the worst one is.

Encouraging "others" to shoot dead each other, just because they take some 'thing' of theirs, or yours, is just you wanting to have control and ownership over "others", which completely contradicts the very things you are saying here.

Do you really believe, or are you under some sort of illusion, that you informing "others" that it is perfectly okay for you to shoot dead "another" just because they took your television set from you, is actually a Truly self-directing, being self-responsible, respecting "another", 'person'?

but, that's not very satisfyin' to you, is it?

that's okay: I'm not particularly satisfied with your explanations of how the commies have a watertight answer to their thing never being tested (I don't think it holds water), and -- honestly -- I don't much care to discuss why the folks with a bad idea think the bad idea has never succeeded

You are NOT REALLY 'trying to' suggest here that you actually have a good idea here, are you?

so: if you wanna get dirty and go toe to toe on why communism can or can't work, why a natural right libertarian minarchy can or can't work, I'm all in...but if you're just gonna be academic, I ain't wastin' my time

How could ANY one seriously go, so called, "toe to toe", with you on 'why communism can or can not work', when you appear to have two completely opposing and contradicting definitions for the word?

Also, 'why a natural right libertarian minarchy' idea could NOT possibly work has already been alluded to.

as usual: you're wrong about everything

sit back, pay attention: flash & me may tussle

[henry quirk]

Well not really, it doesn't cover much of the whole getting things done aspect of having a nation and all that. You know, having ports and airports and roads, having schools and all that stuff. If you leave out all the actual things that need to get done either by a state, or under the umbrella of one, then commies can just say "every time I see a child share his sandwich with another kid I am seeing communism at work and it's perfect".

okay, it not satisfyin' to you

wanna have a real discussion on why a natural rights libertarian minarchy can or can't work?

wanna have a real discussion on why a communism can or can't work?

Yes to both.

I know how you define 'natural rights libertarian minarchy' and have ALREADY PROVEN how that will NOT work.

Now, how do you define 'communism'?

You don't have to like it. If you want to be in a meaningful conversation about such things that amounts to more than "I don't like commies, boo to commies" then you would need to understand it though.

surrep and me both sketched out, up-thread, why communism doesn't work, and it ain't got nuthin' to do with not likin' commies (even though I don't)...and, no, I really don't need to know why a bad idea holder thinks his bad idea hasn't been implemented to argue against the bad idea (cuz I have my own notions on that)

From what surreptituous57 wrote, up-thread, this has NEVER come to fruition, which is what is being pointed out to you, by another poster here. So, the statement 'communism' does NOT work can NOT be true and accurate. You, obviously, at least have to SEE some thing in action BEFORE you can assess if it works or does not work.

so: you wanna have a real discussion on why a communism can or can't work?

Again, YES.

And, again, what is your definition of 'communism'?

Neither can work, not if there is any form of competition to them anyway. Neither project could adequately organise their economies and neither can compete long term with the modern liberal democracy which can do a much better job of that sort of thing.

I disagree when it comes to a natural rights libertarian minarchy; agree when it comes to the bad idea (for reasons embedded in surrep's and my assessments)


If you took your state of Louisiana for instance and seceeded from the USA to form a new and more righteous state where [insert communist OR minarchist account of justice here] you would have to seal the borders to keep everyone in somehow, because otherwise within a generation they would all have left. Irrespective of whether the new La constitution was marxist or minarchist, you would destroy their incomes so they would leave.

you're absolutely right about a commie louisuana, but you parade your ignorance if you think keepin' folks in or out is any part of a natural rights libertarian minarchy, or that it would have a constitution (though, I guess three measly articles could be a constitution, if you wanna streeeetch it)

I do NOT think "keeping folks in" 'your little world state' was what was being implied. I think what was being said, and meant, was that IF you wanted ANY one to reside within 'your little world state', in other words, if you would like your little idea to be accepted and agreed with, then it would NOT be, as EVERY one would have bailed out and left you there alone, 'in your state'.

anyway: I'm gettin' tired of pre-debate discussion

if you wanna take either, or both, for a good tussle, let's do it

I provided my views for one of these, which you have YET to respond to.

I AWAIT your definition of 'communism' BEFORE we could have a, so called, "good tussle" on that one.

first define communism (and/or natural rights libertarian minarchy), then I'll do the same...can't have a debate unless we can both agree what it is we're debatin', yeah?

WOW. A human being has actually come to this REALIZATION.

you first

WHY do you want "flashdangerpants" to go first?

age, I appreciate your enthusiasm, but I ain't debatin' you

I'll tussle with flash: you, you're too much work

[henry quirk]

Neither you nor surrep addressed the issue of there never being true communism

sure we did...what we didn't do was lay out a definition for inspection...and neither have you


so I gave you the details

no you didn't...all you did was say capitalism must fall before communism ascends...there's no definition of true or state communism there


Neither of you is addressing Marxism in any meaningful way, you're tilting at a strawman.

then define it so that I may tilt more meaningfully


I'm quite aware that your minarchism comes with open borders.

then why the nonsense about keepin' folks in?


My point is that when you are unable to maintain a stable currency, and your state becomes unable to deal with bribery, corruption and special interests

a natural rights libertarian minarchy can and will have a whole whack of currencies...stability is in the hard value, not from a stabilizin' authority

a natural rights libertarian minarchy isn't a state so you can't bribe, corrupt, or make accountable to special interests that which doesn't exist


everyone will either give up on minarchism and vote to repeal it, or they will leave

well, there's nuthin' really to vote on, and if folks wanna leave, they do


True natural rights minarchism is basically the same thing as the wild west, or Britain when Constantine III removed the legions in 409 AD. A place and time where the nominal authority of any government is so weak that people are left more or less to their own devices until everything falls apart and gangsters or warlords swoop in to fill the power vacuum and people are often actually pleased to see them.

yeah, none of that has anything to do with a natural rights libertarian minarchy

anyway, you gonna offer me a definition of either, or are you just gonna drone on like you know what you're talkin' about?

your definitions, then mine; if they match, we tussle; if they don't, we mebbe tussle about that

I ain't doin' one damn thing more with you till I get defintions

-----

sorry, age: you might have to hunt down those three measly articles yourself

it appears flash may not wanna tussle after all

[henry quirk]

While we wait for Henry to tell us what true libertarian natural rights minarchy actually is

you first: I called it


If we take the Soviet Union and call that true-enough-communism. Ity didn't work because it didn't have enough salesmen in the end. There was no information or incentive linking any market except the military to any producer. So they made half as many fridges and cars and so on as there was demand for, and everyone accepted whatever fridge or car they could get their hands on even though it was totoal shit and not the product the market would actually have selected for at all. And in the end, having shortages of basic commodities results in corruption and decay.

Notional True Communism has never happened, and never will happen because it is based on a set of flawed conceptions of both capitalism (which lacks the weaknesses Marx perceived) and liberal democracy (which is more adaptive by far than Marx supposed). The historical forces he believed would bring about communism and then the end of history just aren't there and they won't do what he imagined.

where's the definition?

start like this: communism is...

and be plain about it

[Age]

Has there ever been a "true" version of that minarchism you are flogging?

the natural rights libertarian minarchy I crave is simply an extension of what is fact: a man belongs to himself; a man has a right to his life, liberty, and property

And, under your little 'world' EVERY one has the right to shoot dead absolutely ANY one if they touch a television, computer, spatula, or tooth pick of "another", without getting permission first, correct?

To me, this 'world' would suffice and last for about a week or two.

in that sense: any time you witness a person self-directing, bein' self-responsible, you're witnessin' my minarchy

And EVERY time we witness a human being blowing the head off of "another" human being, because they took some thing without asking first, then we are also witnessing "henry's" quirking little 'minarchy world', in all of its glory, or gory detail, depending on how one actually views things.

yeah, like flash, I don't think you have a clue about what a natural rights libertarian minarchy is

Correct me if I AM WRONG, but your idea of what your, so called, "natural rights libertarian minarchy', which you crave, is;
simply an extension of what is [a] fact, [to you]: a man belongs to himself; a man has a right to his life, liberty, and property

If this is WRONG, then what is RIGHT?

Also, once again WHY the gender specificity?

mebbe you'll find out through flash and me tusslin'

Why do you want to, so call, "tussle" with that 'one', ONLY? Why not with 'me'?

By the way, what a 'natural right libertarian minarchy' IS, exactly, to you, only you KNOW. So, if you do NOT express 'that' in the EXACT way that you KNOW 'it', then me nor ANY "other" will ever have a clue what a 'natural right libertarian minarchy' IS, from YOUR PERSPECTIVE.

So, if you do NOT want to share with us YOUR PERSPECTIVE, then so be it. But, you OBVIOUSLY can NOT logically, reasonably, nor sensibly, fight nor argue for a 'natural rights libertarian minarchy', when you will NOT share what 'it' is, EXACTLY.

[Age]

So, your minarchist night watchman state, that's also never been tested, right?

as a natural rights libertarian minarchy is just folks bein' free, I think, as I say up-thread, every time you witness someone self-directin', bein' self-responsible, or see folks interactin' freely respectin' each other's ownness, you're seein' my natural rights libertarian minarchy playin' out

You are so absolutely contradictory I find this completely amusing.

Your little, so called, "natural right libertarian minarchy world" is no more less of a 'dictorialship world' than the worst one is.

Encouraging "others" to shoot dead each other, just because they take some 'thing' of theirs, or yours, is just you wanting to have control and ownership over "others", which completely contradicts the very things you are saying here.

Do you really believe, or are you under some sort of illusion, that you informing "others" that it is perfectly okay for you to shoot dead "another" just because they took your television set from you, is actually a Truly self-directing, being self-responsible, respecting "another", 'person'?

but, that's not very satisfyin' to you, is it?

that's okay: I'm not particularly satisfied with your explanations of how the commies have a watertight answer to their thing never being tested (I don't think it holds water), and -- honestly -- I don't much care to discuss why the folks with a bad idea think the bad idea has never succeeded

You are NOT REALLY 'trying to' suggest here that you actually have a good idea here, are you?

so: if you wanna get dirty and go toe to toe on why communism can or can't work, why a natural right libertarian minarchy can or can't work, I'm all in...but if you're just gonna be academic, I ain't wastin' my time

How could ANY one seriously go, so called, "toe to toe", with you on 'why communism can or can not work', when you appear to have two completely opposing and contradicting definitions for the word?

Also, 'why a natural right libertarian minarchy' idea could NOT possibly work has already been alluded to.

as usual: you're wrong about everything

LOL You just saying I am wrong "about EVERY thing", as usual, does NOT mean that I actually am WRONG, as usual, at all.

Now, for EVERY thing, or even a select few things, which you say I am WRONG, then will you point them out, AND THEN explain WHY you propose and allege they are WRONG?

If you will NOT do this, then this might speak volumes about what is ACTUALLY TRUE.

By the way, I have asked you multiple times to CLARIFY what you have said, by what you actually MEANT. If you are incapable of doing this, as you are SHOWING, then for you to claim "another" is WRONG, is just pure ludicrousness, in and of itself.

sit back, pay attention: flash & me may tussle

I have asked you define the thing you claim you are going to "tussle" about. YET you can NOT or will NOT even do this.

As I have claimed before this could be because if you did, then you would CONTRADICT what you have previously presented.

[Age]

Well not really, it doesn't cover much of the whole getting things done aspect of having a nation and all that. You know, having ports and airports and roads, having schools and all that stuff. If you leave out all the actual things that need to get done either by a state, or under the umbrella of one, then commies can just say "every time I see a child share his sandwich with another kid I am seeing communism at work and it's perfect".

okay, it not satisfyin' to you

wanna have a real discussion on why a natural rights libertarian minarchy can or can't work?

wanna have a real discussion on why a communism can or can't work?

Yes to both.

I know how you define 'natural rights libertarian minarchy' and have ALREADY PROVEN how that will NOT work.

Now, how do you define 'communism'?

You don't have to like it. If you want to be in a meaningful conversation about such things that amounts to more than "I don't like commies, boo to commies" then you would need to understand it though.

surrep and me both sketched out, up-thread, why communism doesn't work, and it ain't got nuthin' to do with not likin' commies (even though I don't)...and, no, I really don't need to know why a bad idea holder thinks his bad idea hasn't been implemented to argue against the bad idea (cuz I have my own notions on that)

From what surreptituous57 wrote, up-thread, this has NEVER come to fruition, which is what is being pointed out to you, by another poster here. So, the statement 'communism' does NOT work can NOT be true and accurate. You, obviously, at least have to SEE some thing in action BEFORE you can assess if it works or does not work.

so: you wanna have a real discussion on why a communism can or can't work?

Again, YES.

And, again, what is your definition of 'communism'?

Neither can work, not if there is any form of competition to them anyway. Neither project could adequately organise their economies and neither can compete long term with the modern liberal democracy which can do a much better job of that sort of thing.

I disagree when it comes to a natural rights libertarian minarchy; agree when it comes to the bad idea (for reasons embedded in surrep's and my assessments)


If you took your state of Louisiana for instance and seceeded from the USA to form a new and more righteous state where [insert communist OR minarchist account of justice here] you would have to seal the borders to keep everyone in somehow, because otherwise within a generation they would all have left. Irrespective of whether the new La constitution was marxist or minarchist, you would destroy their incomes so they would leave.

you're absolutely right about a commie louisuana, but you parade your ignorance if you think keepin' folks in or out is any part of a natural rights libertarian minarchy, or that it would have a constitution (though, I guess three measly articles could be a constitution, if you wanna streeeetch it)

I do NOT think "keeping folks in" 'your little world state' was what was being implied. I think what was being said, and meant, was that IF you wanted ANY one to reside within 'your little world state', in other words, if you would like your little idea to be accepted and agreed with, then it would NOT be, as EVERY one would have bailed out and left you there alone, 'in your state'.

anyway: I'm gettin' tired of pre-debate discussion

if you wanna take either, or both, for a good tussle, let's do it

I provided my views for one of these, which you have YET to respond to.

I AWAIT your definition of 'communism' BEFORE we could have a, so called, "good tussle" on that one.

first define communism (and/or natural rights libertarian minarchy), then I'll do the same...can't have a debate unless we can both agree what it is we're debatin', yeah?

WOW. A human being has actually come to this REALIZATION.

you first

WHY do you want "flashdangerpants" to go first?

age, I appreciate your enthusiasm, but I ain't debatin' you

I'll tussle with flash: you, you're too much work

Thanks for being Honest.

[Age]

Neither you nor surrep addressed the issue of there never being true communism

sure we did...what we didn't do was lay out a definition for inspection...and neither have you


so I gave you the details

no you didn't...all you did was say capitalism must fall before communism ascends...there's no definition of true or state communism there


Neither of you is addressing Marxism in any meaningful way, you're tilting at a strawman.

then define it so that I may tilt more meaningfully


I'm quite aware that your minarchism comes with open borders.

then why the nonsense about keepin' folks in?


My point is that when you are unable to maintain a stable currency, and your state becomes unable to deal with bribery, corruption and special interests

a natural rights libertarian minarchy can and will have a whole whack of currencies...stability is in the hard value, not from a stabilizin' authority

a natural rights libertarian minarchy isn't a state so you can't bribe, corrupt, or make accountable to special interests that which doesn't exist


everyone will either give up on minarchism and vote to repeal it, or they will leave

well, there's nuthin' really to vote on, and if folks wanna leave, they do


True natural rights minarchism is basically the same thing as the wild west, or Britain when Constantine III removed the legions in 409 AD. A place and time where the nominal authority of any government is so weak that people are left more or less to their own devices until everything falls apart and gangsters or warlords swoop in to fill the power vacuum and people are often actually pleased to see them.

yeah, none of that has anything to do with a natural rights libertarian minarchy

anyway, you gonna offer me a definition of either, or are you just gonna drone on like you know what you're talkin' about?

your definitions, then mine; if they match, we tussle; if they don't, we mebbe tussle about that

I ain't doin' one damn thing more with you till I get defintions

-----

sorry, age: you might have to hunt down those three measly articles yourself

You so far have provided two completely opposing and contradicting views regarding 'communism', so I asked you previously to define 'communism'. But you will NOT.

Now, what 'three measly articles' are you even talking about and referring to here? And, what are they even in relation to, exactly?

it appears flash may not wanna tussle after all

[FlashDangerpants]

While we wait for Henry to tell us what true libertarian natural rights minarchy actually is

you first: I called it


If we take the Soviet Union and call that true-enough-communism. Ity didn't work because it didn't have enough salesmen in the end. There was no information or incentive linking any market except the military to any producer. So they made half as many fridges and cars and so on as there was demand for, and everyone accepted whatever fridge or car they could get their hands on even though it was totoal shit and not the product the market would actually have selected for at all. And in the end, having shortages of basic commodities results in corruption and decay.

Notional True Communism has never happened, and never will happen because it is based on a set of flawed conceptions of both capitalism (which lacks the weaknesses Marx perceived) and liberal democracy (which is more adaptive by far than Marx supposed). The historical forces he believed would bring about communism and then the end of history just aren't there and they won't do what he imagined.

where's the definition?

start like this: communism is...

and be plain about it

If we take a basic defintion (this one's from Investopedia)

What Is Marxism?
Marxism is a social, political, and economic philosophy named after Karl Marx, which examines the effect of capitalism on labor, productivity, and economic development and argues for a worker revolution to overturn capitalism in favor of communism. Marxism posits that the struggle between social classes, specifically between the bourgeoisie, or capitalists, and the proletariat, or workers, defines economic relations in a capitalist economy and will inevitably lead to revolutionary communism.

Then the only thing I would add that is relevant to a philosophy type of conversation is the point that it is claimed to be a scientific prediction and taken from a scientific analysis of history, written in the days when Hegel was still the big thing. As far as I am concerned, the original Marxist theory is the only one that is relevant if the question of whether or not it has actually happened is being addressed. Marxism predicts that communism is the creation of capitalism, not the creation of the revolution that simply ushers it into the world. Thus if Investopedia's defintion is read clumsily (or was written clumsily) it could be taken to be advocating for such revolution when it was intended to be understood that the revolution would come at its own time, not a chosen one.

As for the minarchism thing. Well I guess we are stuck with wikipedia

A night-watchman state or minarchy is a model of a state that is limited and minimal, whose only functions are to act as an enforcer of the non-aggression principle by providing its citizens with the military, the police and courts, thereby protecting them from aggression, theft, breach of contract, fraud and enforcing property laws. Its proponents are called minarchists.

This form of government is mainly associated with Objectivist, and right-libertarian political philosophy. However, minarchism has also been advocated by non-anarchist libertarian socialists and other left-libertarians. Some anarchists and left-libertarians have also proposed or supported a minimal welfare state on the grounds that social safety nets are short-term goals for the working class and believe in stopping welfare programs only if it means abolishing both government and capitalism. Other left-libertarians prefer repealing corporate welfare before social welfare for the poor.

[FlashDangerpants]

Why do you want to, so call, "tussle" with that 'one', ONLY? Why not with 'me'?

Because I'm annoying, but you are needy and annoying.

[henry quirk]

simply an extension of what is [a] fact: a man belongs to himself; a man has a right to his life, liberty, and property

that there is the first two of three articles, yeah


Also, once again WHY the gender specificity?

it's just a habit: substitute person if you like


Why not with 'me'?

cuz you're hard work

take this line of yours...

By the way, what a 'natural right libertarian minarchy' IS, exactly, to you, only you KNOW. So, if you do NOT express 'that' in the EXACT way that you KNOW 'it', then me nor ANY "other" will ever have a clue what a 'natural right libertarian minarchy' IS, from YOUR PERSPECTIVE.

...what's with all the CAPS? and why not just say: I don't understand what you mean by a natural rights libertarian minarchy, Henry. Explain it to me.

no, It's always a decipherin' job with your posts

I ain't got the will for it, not over the long-haul

[henry quirk]

Yes to both.

I know how you define 'natural rights libertarian minarchy' and have ALREADY PROVEN how that will NOT work.

Now, how do you define 'communism'?




From what surreptituous57 wrote, up-thread, this has NEVER come to fruition, which is what is being pointed out to you, by another poster here. So, the statement 'communism' does NOT work can NOT be true and accurate. You, obviously, at least have to SEE some thing in action BEFORE you can assess if it works or does not work.



Again, YES.

And, again, what is your definition of 'communism'?



I do NOT think "keeping folks in" 'your little world state' was what was being implied. I think what was being said, and meant, was that IF you wanted ANY one to reside within 'your little world state', in other words, if you would like your little idea to be accepted and agreed with, then it would NOT be, as EVERY one would have bailed out and left you there alone, 'in your state'.



I provided my views for one of these, which you have YET to respond to.

I AWAIT your definition of 'communism' BEFORE we could have a, so called, "good tussle" on that one.



WOW. A human being has actually come to this REALIZATION.



WHY do you want "flashdangerpants" to go first?

age, I appreciate your enthusiasm, but I ain't debatin' you

I'll tussle with flash: you, you're too much work

Thanks for being Honest.

I'm always honest with folks who are honest with me...I see you as honest (and too much work...sorry)

[henry quirk]

Marxism is a social, political, and economic philosophy named after Karl Marx, which examines the effect of capitalism on labor, productivity, and economic development and argues for a worker revolution to overturn capitalism in favor of communism. Marxism posits that the struggle between social classes, specifically between the bourgeoisie, or capitalists, and the proletariat, or workers, defines economic relations in a capitalist economy and will inevitably lead to revolutionary communism.

Then the only thing I would add that is relevant to a philosophy type of conversation is the point that it is claimed to be a scientific prediction and taken from a scientific analysis of history, written in the days when Hegel was still the big thing. As far as I am concerned, the original Marxist theory is the only one that is relevant if the question of whether or not it has actually happened is being addressed. Marxism predicts that communism is the creation of capitalism, not the creation of the revolution that simply ushers it into the world. Thus if Investopedia's defintion is read clumsily (or was written clumsily) it could be taken to be advocating for such revolution when it was intended to be understood that the revolution would come at its own time, not a chosen one.

I see no definition: only a half-assed history lesson

please, for the last time: define communism


A night-watchman state or minarchy is a model of a state that is limited and minimal, whose only functions are to act as an enforcer of the non-aggression principle by providing its citizens with the military, the police and courts, thereby protecting them from aggression, theft, breach of contract, fraud and enforcing property laws. Its proponents are called minarchists.

finally, sumthin' I can sink my teeth into...you coulda just pulled this up hours ago and saved us both a lotta back & forth

anyway: the wiki definition is fine as far as it goes but it really doesn't stand as a definition for a natural rights libertarian minarchy

will you be on tomorrow? I've had myself day, both on-line and off...I'm tuckered and bed bound before too long

anyway: I'll post my own definition tomorrow (along with one for communism [I'll even mark the distinction between true and state, to make age happy] after you post yours)

[Age]

prove it by either living ALONE

I have, for a year (and I ain't talkin' about hunkerin' down in an apartment or house with ready access to the hot & cold and the cable and the a/c)...communality or communism was not required

Well I do NOT want to know what you are NOT talking about. I want to KNOW what you are talking about.

So, what are you talking about?

Until then, you have proven NOTHING.

In fact, what you are saying and doing here now is just PROVEN MORE what I was saying, and meaning.

leaving a young one ALONE and see how long that one actually last for

you're equatin' love, what one does as loving, with communism?

Why do you write a statement telling me what I am doing, but put a question mark at the end of your statement?

If human beings were Truly built to be an individual, then OBVIOUSLY the species human being would NOT exist.

so: cuz a man and woman are needed to make a baby, man is communist?

No.

Why would you ask such a thing?

And why are you so gender specific?

really there is NO need to continuing on with this discussion.

and yet here you are, bendin' my ear

To SHOW and REVEAL just how CLOSED human beings REALLY ARE whilst they maintain their BELIEFS.

You, "henry quirk", are a PRIME EXAMPLE of a human being with a well maintained, and thus unmovable, BELIEF.

But human beings existed, commonly, in communion with each other within communal groups, in naturally formed communities, WAY BEFORE there was any words or ideas such as 'communism', and WAY BEFORE any ideas of how to 'implement' such ideas came into existence.

individuals lived, live, together, cuz they like or love one another, and cuz it's advantageous sometimes to work together, hunt together, to defend (or, offend) together...cooperation can be a grand thing

Your short-sightedness and narrowedness field of vision is astounding.

What is the difference between 'state communism' and 'true communism'(?)

the latter is what folks like yourself thinks comes naturally; the former is what folks like yourself foist up on others when they fail to do the latter

LOL 'you', and your BELIEFS, are beyond being a joke now.

I ask 'you' for the difference between two things, and you then proceed to tell me what I, supposedly, think.

Could this get any more ridiculous?

And, what would, so called, "true communism", allegedly, have human beings do 'voluntarily', which you will NOT do?

true expects, state demands, I serve (which I won't)

Who or what controls this, so called, "true communism", which, supposedly, 'expects'?

If you are so CLOSED and can NOT see ANY thing working better than, so called, "state capitalism", then so be it.

state capitalism bites, but it's still better than any communism

If this is what you ASSUME, and BELIEVE, is true, then you are NOT OPEN to SEEING ANY thing else.

What is the BEST society is a Self-governing society.

the best arrangement is individuals livin' within the rather broad confines of three measly articles, which I've posted several times in-forum...hunt 'em down or wait and see if flash and me tussle (if we do, I'll repost 'em here)

Okay.

Was it just to hard for you to post them now?

By the way, WHY do you talk about these three things, but will NOT clarify what they actually are?