"There has never been true communism."

[FlashDangerpants]

So while it's notable we don't actually have any communists or Marxists here to spar with, we seem to largely agree that comunism on a small scale where communities of common purpose find each other and live in shared environments with shared property and minimal hierarchies are small scale expressions of communism in exactly the way that Henry's minarchism is displayed at a localised level.

But both minarchy and communism are probably impossible to express on a larger scale becasue the concepts just don't work unless it all happens by persons of like intent mutually finding each other, which is an unlikely accident to occur to a whole nation.

[henry quirk]

So while it's notable we don't actually have any communists or Marxists here to spar with, we seem to largely agree that comunism on a small scale where communities of common purpose find each other and live in shared environments with shared property and minimal hierarchies are small scale expressions of communism in exactly the way that Henry's minarchism is displayed at a localised level.

no sir we do not

while a minarchy can tolerate a communism, a minarchy doesn't demand common ownership or purpose; a minarchy demands only a respect of life, liberty, and property (and promises consequence where respect is lackin')


But both minarchy and communism are probably impossible to express on a larger scale becasue the concepts just don't work unless it all happens by persons of like intent mutually finding each other, which is an unlikely accident to occur to a whole nation.

in the of case of communism: as it is an alien thing, it can only happen, small or large scale, when the clever and opportunistic types decide to enslave a population for their own good...this is the communistic state of which there are plenty of examples

with a minarchy: as it is, I think, the natural evolution of things -- that march from slavery to freedom (individual, not communal) -- all that can stymie it are those clever opportunists (and, of course, naysayers like yourself)...

but ownness, that recognition and assertion of self-possession, self-direction, self-responsibility, is relentless (it's that like intent you mention)...minarchy can be delayed, but -- eventually -- it will out

the commie will sup with natural rights libertarian, each certain the other is a nutjob, each certain the other has a right to that nutjobbery, both minarchists

[henry quirk]

Communism is only possible under the leadership of philosopher kings. They don't exist so we are better off as a free people.

even if philosopher kings existed, I'd be obliged to resist 'em

I am my own

[henry quirk]

There was once true communism.

And, there still might be.

no, there never was, and there never will be

Exactly.

don't forget, though: state communism does exist (cuz there's always someone lookin' to leash another, with the best of intentions, or to profit)

[vegetariantaxidermy]

no, there never was, and there never will be

Exactly.

don't forget, though: state communism does exist (cuz there's always someone lookin' to leash another, with the best of intentions, or to profit)

Sigh. I thought you had it.
The 'CCP' is a ridiculous misnomer. China is about as capitalist as you can get. Very little freedom though.

And dictatorships (whatever label they like to give themselves) are ALL about putting people on leashes.
As for communism, if it did exist then it's not a system that I would want to live in (despite certain idiots on here (IC) confusing stating facts with voicing a preference for). Possibly the only real examply of a communist system would be the Israeli Kibbutz, and even on that small level it failed in its extreme form because of human nature. Humans are part of a society because it's good for survival and it suits us (hence the word 'SOCiety' because we are SOCial animals)--but that doesn't mean we don't still want to be individuals with a certain amount of control over the way we live our lives. Neighbours are ok and can have their uses--but you don't want to get too close to them

[Immanuel Can]

As for communism, if it did exist then it's not a system that I would want to live in (despite certain idiots on here (IC) confusing stating facts with voicing a preference for).

Heh.

What I challenged you for was talking about "true Communism" when, by your own admission, no such thing had every existed and you don't have the foggiest idea what "true Communism" would be anyway.

But don't let me stop you talking...

[henry quirk]

Sigh. I thought you had it.

I do...everything you've said, I've said throughout this thread


The 'CCP' is a ridiculous misnomer. China is about as capitalist as you can get. Very little freedom though.

china is a prime example of what I and you and surrep are talkin' about: they aspire to be a communism, however communism is alien to how people actually think and behave, the best china can cobble together is a state communism, a hodgepodge of philosophies and policies that only hold together by force...that they've adopted certain market policies while desperately holdin' on to the shell of communism illustrates this


And dictatorships (whatever label they like to give themselves) are ALL about putting people on leashes.

of course...they're all slaver states...it just so happens, in this thread, the focus is on the communistic ones

[vegetariantaxidermy]

As for communism, if it did exist then it's not a system that I would want to live in (despite certain idiots on here (IC) confusing stating facts with voicing a preference for).

Heh.

What I challenged you for was talking about "true Communism" when, by your own admission, no such thing had every existed and you don't have the foggiest idea what "true Communism" would be anyway.

But don't let me stop you talking...

Better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool.....
Why don't you ask your pal Henry to explain communism for you then, you sycophantic little arse licker.
Clearly you both think it means whatever it suits you to mean. Yanks have a habit of doing that. They think word meanings change depending on whatever political or religious persuasion the person using it has.

[FlashDangerpants]

So at this point of the conversation you were agreeing with my definition of communism...

I guess any social organisation in which all land and sources of employment are held collectively rather than privately is fundamentally communist. And in place of your minarchist creed about man owning himself would be the commie one of from each according to his ability, to each according to his need. And a flat socio-economic hiearchy with zero class stratification is a must. Everything beyond that is optional.

very good...it's not a particularly *deep definition (in the same way the wiki definition of minarchy wasn't deep), but it's a start...I'll stipulate that I agree with your definition of communism

But then you forgot?

So while it's notable we don't actually have any communists or Marxists here to spar with, we seem to largely agree that comunism on a small scale where communities of common purpose find each other and live in shared environments with shared property and minimal hierarchies are small scale expressions of communism in exactly the way that Henry's minarchism is displayed at a localised level.

no sir we do not

while a minarchy can tolerate a communism, a minarchy doesn't demand common ownership or purpose; a minarchy demands only a respect of life, liberty, and property (and promises consequence where respect is lackin')

What gives? There is nothing in my definition of communism which is not achievable simply by people who like the idea agreeing to join a community with sharing of resources and equal apportionment of returns. Are you sneaking extra stuff into the agreed definition to suit your rhetorical purpose?

But both minarchy and communism are probably impossible to express on a larger scale becasue the concepts just don't work unless it all happens by persons of like intent mutually finding each other, which is an unlikely accident to occur to a whole nation.

in the of case of communism: as it is an alien thing, it can only happen, small or large scale, when the clever and opportunistic types decide to enslave a population for their own good...this is the communistic state of which there are plenty of examples

with a minarchy: as it is, I think, the natural evolution of things -- that march from slavery to freedom (individual, not communal) -- all that can stymie it are those clever opportunists (and, of course, naysayers like yourself)...

but ownness, that recognition and assertion of self-possession, self-direction, self-responsibility, is relentless (it's that like intent you mention)...minarchy can be delayed, but -- eventually -- it will out

the commie will sup with natural rights libertarian, each certain the other is a nutjob, each certain the other has a right to that nutjobbery, both minarchists

You aren't applying the same tests to the thing you like that you apply to the thing you don't like. You give your own preference all this extra benefit of the doubt, and your "owness" thing is something you have never been keen to properly describe.

Given that nobody else has ever been able to eradicate opportunists, those being the very people who stymied every other noble idea ever, I don't really see how "the only people that can stymie it" being the people who stymie everything is a great reason to have a lot of faith in this project. It's just another way of saying that everyone who joins in needs to have similar expectations.

That last thing incidentally is my real point. You live in a pluralist society, you may not enjoy all the details, but the thing that makes it so strong is the fact that it can allow very broad (I say briad, not infinte) latitude for many people with widely differing outlooks to live and work together and live their lives much as they wish to lead them without, itself, falling apart. That is why we can have an era of drastic change without toppling. Modern western society doesn't have the shortcomings of communism or minarchism or any of the exotic special social constructs with which many would wish to replace it in that it can accomodate these varying expectations, and the opportunists too.

[Age]

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

What, EXACTLY, are you referring to when you use the word 'needy' here?

Hopefully the irony here is NOT lost.

Anyway, if by 'needy' you mean that I 'need' people to show and reveal what they actually have, which, supposedly, backs up and supports their claims and what they say, and/or I 'need' people to clarify what they actually mean, in what they say, then that is PERFECTLY FINE with me. If people just can NOT back up and support their claims and what they say and/or can NOT clarify what they actually mean, in what they say, then so be it. But, if you meant some thing different, then what did you mean by your use of the word 'needy' here?

What I mean is that the topic of any conversation you enter into is largely irrelevant. You are one of several people on this forum who will go into these things and imediately make it all about the thing you always talk about in any conversation at all. Mostly that seems to be the "clarifying questions" which you constantly demand of us all.

This just does NOT follow NOR make sense, to me.

If I am asking "others" clarifying questions, then those clarifying questions would, OBVIOUSLY, be in regards to what THEY have said. And, so NOT 'irrelevant' at all.

If they do NOT clarify, then I may mostly remark on that FACT. This means that IF they did clarify, then I would NOT have to "always" talk about CLARIFYING.

By the way, I do NOT constantly demand any thing.

You are absolutely FREE to clarify, what you actually mean, or not. I just ask the questions for those that would like to CLARIFY, what they actually MEAN.

Basically, you are needy because you make every conversation about you.

If people can NOT or will NOT clarify what they say or can NOT or will NOT back up and support what they propose or claim is true, then that is NOT about 'me'. That is more about them.

Now, will you provide some examples to back up and support your claim here that I, supposedly and allegedly make EVERY conversation about 'me'? If you do NOT, then we have nothing to LOOK AT, and discuss.

[henry quirk]

you wrote: ...we seem to largely agree that comunism on a small scale where communities of common purpose find each other and live in shared environments with shared property and minimal hierarchies are small scale expressions of communism in exactly the way that Henry's minarchism is displayed at a localised level.

what you seem to say here: a natural rights libertarian minarchy & a communism are indistinguishable

if that's what you're sayin': then -- no -- we do not agree


You aren't applying the same tests to the thing you like that you apply to the thing you don't like.

how so? I thought it was clear: man is not built for communism (voluntary slavery)...communism requires a psychology that isn't natural for man...to implement a communism requires state to force man to be communistic

man, on the other hand, is built for a natural rights libertarian minarchy (freedom)...a natural rights libertarian minarchy perfectly matches man's psychology...to implement a natural rights libertarian minarchy man simply has to be free and leave the other to do the same

in the first: man enslaves man for the common good

in the second: man is free


You give your own preference all this extra benefit of the doubt, and your "owness" thing is something you have never been keen to properly describe.

I am a proponent of my thing and a opponent of the other thing: this is true

as for owness: I have explained it, properly, in several places, in-forum

ownness is the innate intuition of all men: I belong to me, I am not property of another


Given that nobody else has ever been able to eradicate opportunists, those being the very people who stymied every other noble idea ever, I don't really see how "the only people that can stymie it" being the people who stymie everything is a great reason to have a lot of faith in this project.

it ain't a project, and faith ain't required

man is free; there are always those lookin' to leash him, even as they themselves would never submit to the leash

what's required is the willingness to spill the slaver's blood, to resist, to fight...the general, meanderin', rock scrabble, path is always forward, away from slavery toward freedom (more accurately, toward the recognition that man is free, bein' free is his natural state)


It's just another way of saying that everyone who joins in needs to have similar expectations.

not similar expectations, but the same expectation: to self-direct, to be self-responsible (freedom)


You live in a pluralist society, you may not enjoy all the details, but the thing that makes it so strong is the fact that it can allow very broad (I say briad, not infinte) latitude for many people with widely differing outlooks to live and work together and live their lives much as they wish to lead them without, itself, falling apart.

indeed

reduce gov to its bare minimum and it would be even that much better


That is why we can have an era of drastic change without toppling. Modern western society doesn't have the shortcomings of communism or minarchism or any of the exotic special social constructs with which many would wish to replace it in that it can accomodate these varying expectations, and the opportunists too.

a natural rights libertarian minarchy has no shortcomings

-----

almost missed this...

There is nothing in my definition of communism which is not achievable simply by people who like the idea agreeing to join a community with sharing of resources and equal apportionment of returns.

show me one

[FlashDangerpants]

you wrote: ...we seem to largely agree that comunism on a small scale where communities of common purpose find each other and live in shared environments with shared property and minimal hierarchies are small scale expressions of communism in exactly the way that Henry's minarchism is displayed at a localised level.

what you seem to say here: a natural rights libertarian minarchy & a communism are indistinguishable

if that's what you're sayin': then -- no -- we do not agree

Of course I am not saying they are the same thing, I am saying that they share a common thing. you know, like cats and dogs aren't the same thing, but they both have four legs?

You aren't applying the same tests to the thing you like that you apply to the thing you don't like.

how so? I thought it was clear: man is not built for communism (voluntary slavery)...communism requires a psychology that isn't natural for man...to implement a communism requires state to force man to be communistic

You agreed a defintion and now you are just changing it to suit yourself. You conspicuously aren't responding to the question I asked about that. I do not agree at all that small communes of like minded people who share their shit with each other are impossible, and I definitely don't hold with this insistence that human nature doesn't allow for it stuff. You are just asserting that out of spite.

[henry quirk]

Clearly you both think it means whatever it suits you to mean.

veg, I see nuthin' about the way you describe communism (true or state) that conflicts with how I describe it

furthermore: I see nuthin' in Mannie's description of communism that conflicts with how I (or you) describe it

so: if you can be non-sour for a minute you'd see that you, me, and Mannie are really on the same page

[henry quirk]

Of course I am not saying they are the same thing, I am saying that they share a common thing. you know, like cats and dogs aren't the same thing, but they both have four legs?

my apologies for misunderstandin'

what's the common thing?


You agreed a defintion and now you are just changing it to suit yourself. You conspicuously aren't responding to the question I asked about that.

I agreed with (and still agree with with) your base definition but declared it shallow, said I or we could explore the philosophical & psychological underpinnings of communism...my declarin' why communism doesn't work isn't changing the defintion; it's me sayin' why communism doesn't work (explorin' the underpinnin')

simply: I agreed with your definition of a bad idea and I explained why it's a bad idea


I do not agree at all that small communes of like minded people who share their shit with each other are impossible, and I definitely don't hold with this insistence that human nature doesn't allow for it stuff.

I know you don't..did I say you did?

[vegetariantaxidermy]

I do not agree at all that small communes of like minded people who share their shit with each other are impossible, and I definitely don't hold with this insistence that human nature doesn't allow for it stuff. You are just asserting that out of spite.

It most certainly 'is' impossible because there are always the areholes who want to dominate and hold more power than everyone else--and people are only too willing to let them do it (which is also why Henry's form of anarchy doesn't work either. Both have the same end result).