"There has never been true communism."

[FlashDangerpants]

even a casual review of history shows, as I say, a relentless march away from man as another's (slavery) toward man as his own (freedom)...we don't have a natural rights libertarian minarchy yet, but we will

This brings I think it was Pooper's criticism of a theiry like that to min "history does not run on rails"
I have been authorised to award 100 shiny Flash Danger Points to whoever guesses which theorist he was criticisng for that sort of directional history.

never said the march was clean, straight, or continuously successful

pretty sure I described it as meanderin' more then once and mebbe described it as haltingly

over the long haul, however, the march is foward

Forward is sometimes considered a direction.

[henry quirk]

This brings I think it was Pooper's criticism of a theiry like that to min "history does not run on rails"
I have been authorised to award 100 shiny Flash Danger Points to whoever guesses which theorist he was criticisng for that sort of directional history.

never said the march was clean, straight, or continuously successful

pretty sure I described it as meanderin' more then once and mebbe described it as haltingly

over the long haul, however, the march is foward

Forward is sometimes considered a direction.

but not directly, cleanly, on rails, which is what is what you're sayin' I'm paintin' things to be, yeah?

honestly though, this...

This brings I think it was Pooper's criticism of a theiry like that to min "history does not run on rails"

...is a head scratcher (probably cuz I'm tired)

-----

anyway, like I say, tomorrow

[Advocate]

[quote="henry quirk" post_id=472717 time=1600739273 user_id=472]
[quote=FlashDangerpants post_id=472716 time=1600738977 user_id=11800]
[quote="henry quirk" post_id=472713 time=1600738578 user_id=472]


never said the march was clean, straight, or continuously successful

pretty sure I described it as meanderin' more then once and mebbe described it as haltingly

over the long haul, however, the march is foward
[/quote]
Forward is sometimes considered a direction.
[/quote]

but not directly, cleanly, on rails, which is what is what you're sayin' I'm paintin' things to be, yeah?

honestly though, this...

This brings I think it was Pooper's criticism of a theiry like that to min "history does not run on rails"

...is a head scratcher (probably cuz I'm tired)

-----

anyway, like I say, tomorrow
[/quote]

Nuh-uh.

[Belinda]

Why?









the answer is obvious

Because some individuals are always going to be bossier than others. that has always been the case and probably always will be.

[FlashDangerpants]

never said the march was clean, straight, or continuously successful

pretty sure I described it as meanderin' more then once and mebbe described it as haltingly

over the long haul, however, the march is foward

Forward is sometimes considered a direction.

but not directly, cleanly, on rails, which is what is what you're sayin' I'm paintin' things to be, yeah?

honestly though, this...

This brings I think it was Pooper's criticism of a theiry like that to min "history does not run on rails"

...is a head scratcher (probably cuz I'm tired)

-----

anyway, like I say, tomorrow

What makes a history "directional" (teleological historicism) is just the idea of a destination, like some place that some sort of historical forces are taking us to. So in your theory that variety of social evolution leading to what I am now callingt the small landholder's paradise, in Marx's it was the competing forces of class struggles taking us inexorably and scientifically to the worker's paradise, in some other theories with that same directional tendency it is manifest destiny, the white man's civilising influence over naked brown savages.... and a whole bunch of others. The point being that they all interpret history as some sort of apparently messy process when viewed up close, but from which a specific outcome must arise and in the end state a certain order will prevail.

The whole meandering thing you referenced though... that's a common metaphor for something called the Dialectic, for which Hegel, Marx and Engels are the famous theorists. Marx paints the same picture of zigzag, and back and forth and swings and roundabouts, halting progress and partial revanchism as any other directional history will.

Rather than suggesting a reading of Marx, I would suggest a peruse upon Popper's The Poverty Of Historicism as it would give you both ammunition in your war on Marx, and perhaps some guidance for how to avoid making what I (unoriginally) believe is Marx's worst mistake in your own argument. Also it is short, clear and makes sense, which isn't necessarily a reliable set to expect from Marx. It's quite compatible with Austrian school economics too, got some similarities on the go with Hayek.

[Age]

If being "too much work' is the way that is felt and thought about me, then that is perfectly understandable, acceptable, AND fine with me.

good...I'm glad you understand...now, I'm gonna put you on ignore for little bit...

Why for only a 'little bit'?

Why not for ever?

I wanna focus of the back & forth between me and flash, and that's difficult enough to do on this ipad mini without havin' to wade through your posts too...

this person may NOT BE AWARE that they do NOT have to read EVERY thing, or even ANY thing, of mine.

once flash & me are done, I'll restore you then -- if I can muster the will -- address any questions you have

But WHY would this person, supposedly, start addressing my clarifying questions, ONLY AFTER they have finished discussing with some one "else"?

[Sculptor]

One : we are not actually hardwired to be universally altruistic

Two : communism doesnt work because people like to own stuff as Frank Zappa said

The first applies to true communism and the second applies to economic communism

You all know the difference so I dont need to tell you what it is

We are hardwired to be altruistic.
Amongst many other things.

[Age]

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

on to my minarchy...

the natural rights libertarian minarchy is informed by three notions (the articles I mention up-thread)...I've written about these before...they offer a philosophical underpinning to the particular minarchy I favor, supported by what seems to be man's natural psychological bent (personally, I think it goes deeper than psychology, but I'll leave my religion, and what I believe to be moral fact, out of this discussion)

a man belongs to himself

To me, Everything belongs to Its Self.

a man has a right to his life, liberty, and property

If that person were to read my post here, then I wonder if they would clarify IF a woman and/or a child have these rights as well?

a man's life, liberty, or property are only forfeit, in part or whole, when he knowingly, willingly, without just cause, deprives another, in part or whole, of life, liberty, or property

So, the person who wrote this would have their life, liberty, or property forfeited. This is because this person, in part and in whole, is knowingly, and unknowingly, willingly, without just cause depriving "others", in part and whole, of life, liberty, and property.

these three derive from my own intuitions about man's nature, supported by the thoughts of locke, reid, and others

minarchy extends out from these three...any rule or regulation or law adopted by the minarchists extends out from these three

Just seems like ANOTHER very OVER complicated and very hard set of laws or rules being made by one, or some, and which are expected to be followed, by "other", and if they are not followed by some, then those ones will be punished severely, by those who think or believe that they are superior, to "others".

This is ALL very contradictory from the claim that a human being, (or man), has a right to their life, their liberty, and to their property.

typically, minarchist thinkin' sez a minarchy requires three proxies (local peacekeeping, local arbitration, and national peacekeeping)...I accept these but interpret them as...

a local, minimal, constabulary

a local, minimal, court of last resort

a minimal armed border patrol

the militia

Saying these things partly explains WHY you can NOT back up and support your views here and WHY you can NOT clarify your views.

now, rather than fritter myself away answerin' questions, or adressin' criticisms, that haven't been issued, I'll simply wait and watch for your posts

now, I'm goin' do some yardwork...






*by deep I mean the philosophical & psychological underpinnings; the why undergirding a communism or a minarchy...we'll address these as we go (now is the time to trot out marx & engels, I guess)

[Age]

no, there never was, and there never will be

If this is what you BELIEVE is true, then this MUST BE true, to you.

And, if this MUST BE true, to you, then you are OBVIOUSLY NOT open at all in order to be able to learn and understand what thee actual Truth IS.

Age, the "Communist" label is an ideal and why they label their main platform as a party. It might be something like how some party might label their system, "Christian" or "Zionist", as ideal states but in practice requires an evolving system that aims to get to the ideal.

Maybe so. But what is 'true communism', to you?

"Communism" as a label opposes, "Capitalism" with respect to OWNERSHIP.

I am aware of how some people refer to these things, this way.

While we are generally 'capitalistic' in the Western countries, we practice forms of 'social' governments that vary broadly in what they are more specifically.

ALL OF THIS is SO FAR REMOVED from what I am talking about, and referring to.

Sample "communism" are the literal communes and isolated groups, like the Amish, who exist even within Capitalist societies. So these may be considered 'real' but outside of what I assume is meant to refer to whole countries by the OP.

What does 'OP' mean, to you.

To me, the only thing stated in the opening post was;

"There has never been true communism".

Why?

[Age]

Ok. So I guess the question of this thread is whether there has ever been such a state of affairs anywhere, and if not, then perhaps why? Or if there has, then why did it end and what are the lessons of that end?

with communism: surrep & me have pled our case...communism doesn't work, can't work, simply cuz it requires men to have instincts and impulses that we don't have naturally,

But this can be logically argued and logically proven to be WRONG.

and because those impulses and instincts are alien to us, any attempt to make communism happen is adulterated from the start, with one set of folks forcin' another set of folks to act against self-interest

But doing this is contradictory.

EXACTLY like what you propose is contradictory to what you say and do.

what surrep and me didn't say (and surrep may not agree with me here) is that the folks who try to enact communism know damn well it can't work, know damn well it'll be adulterated, and that's the point: they're the politiburo and everyone else is littie people

But that is NOT what 'true communism' IS.

your argument (or marx's) is that capitalism has to wither first (presumably all over the globe, simultaneously) before communism can flourish...capitalism is a durable thing...it ain't ever goin' away...

LOL ANOTHER human being who thinks and BELIEVES they KNOW what will happen FOREVER MORE.

The way human beings are BLINDED, and FOOLED, by their OWN BELIEFS never ceases to amuse me.

so: if you (marx) are right: I ain't got no worries (of course, even if marx is right, that doesn't stop dupes, sympathizers, card-carriers, and those who know the truth from tryin' to grind my sweet, sweet soul into sugary powder to sprinkle on the party approved breakfast cereal)


with minarchy: it doesn't exist formally cuz it's proponents (like me) aren't salesmen, tend toward self-reliance, aren't inclined to get political about it, and tend to live as minarchists anyway (quietly doin' as each sees fit and generally keepin' mum about all of it)...

Although here you are continually talking it, VERY LOUDLY, some will add, and as though it is an absolute Truth.

couple the minarchist's indifference and idiosyncrasy with a general ignorance & apathy amongst the population about anything fallin' outside of established parties and what you get is no minarchy

now, let's say I were to get preachy-like, makin' a big to-do about the virtues of a natural rights libertarian minarchy, and let's say I was able to move a significant number of folks (significant meaning repubs and dems on all levels noticed), the push back would be enormous...a political/economic/philosophical movement that disempowers us, and empowers the citizenry? the actual recognition of inviolate natural rights? our sheep would become wolves! and we'd be dinner! they'd say

the cause, however, is not lost: look to the march of things...over the past 200,000 years man has moved from cowering at the moon to submittin' to god-kings to an uneven, inconsistent, recognition of the individual as sumthin' other than a resource for his betters...the march, meanderin & back-tracky, seems to be in the direction of sumthin' like minarchy (though perhaps not my brand)


It seems to me that if we create a society with very few centres of power or authority, what comes next, if history is any guide, is that various interests make good and sure they gain control of those few insitutions.

seems to me: a self-reliant, self-directing, people are not so easily hoodwinked...after all, a self-reliant, self-directed, people is exactly what a natural rights libertarian minarchy is (and a self-reliant, self-directing, people is exactly, it seems to me, what the powers that be work damn hard to retard)

Just like you, who would love the power to retard those who do NOT do as you so wish they would do.

If some are being very self-reliant and self-directed, but NOT in the way you 'want them to be', then you consider that those one should be punished, and in any way that you see fit.

[Age]

Sample "communism" are the literal communes and isolated groups, like the Amish, who exist even within Capitalist societies. So these may be considered 'real' but outside of what I assume is meant to refer to whole countries by the OP.

thing about the amish: they get pissy and ostracize folks, but they never lock 'em up or line 'em up against the wall

kids, for example, who reject amish ways may never be welcome again (without bein' deeply contrite about it) but they can leave

a natural rights libertarian minarchy can tolerate the amish, or even a legit, marx is tops, communism, as long as the three articles are abided, as long as folks who change their minds can pick up and leave

LOL "a natural rights libertarian minarchy can 'tolerate' ...", "as long as EVERY one abides by the rules, made by some one".

The hypocrisy, and contradictory nature, of this is absolutely hilarious, to me.

ALL of these human being made up societies are EQUALLY just pure absurdness, in and of themselves.

[Age]

There was once true communism.

And, there still might be.

no, there never was, and there never will be

Exactly.

Yes. Exactly.

[Age]

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')

Why this person does NOT make it CLEARLY KNOWN what the 'consequences' actually ARE, is because then this form of RULE, being proposed here, would be ridiculed for the ridiculousness that it Truly IS.

This proposed society, which is very 'demanding', and with promised 'consequences', especially where respect for the "makers" and "leaders" of this society is lacking, is WHY this is just ANOTHER one of those human being made up societies, which have been proven to NEVER really work anyway.

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

Your view of 'your ideal state' is nothing less then all of the other human being 'enslaving a population by some' states. As evidenced and proven by your very own writings.

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)...

Although thee pure free, or freedom, state, which is about to surpass ALL of the other human being made up state/societies, which individuality is a part of, communion is also plays an EQUAL part.

See, this discussion (or philosophical issue) is just ANOTHER NOT a 'one side versus another side' issue at all.

When human beings STOP looking at 'things' this way, and START looking at 'things' from the Truly proper and correct way, then they also will SEE 'things' for how they REALLY ARE.

The BEST society for ALL is the Self-governing society, where EACH and EVERY one governing thy 'self' only, in a completely voluntary way. This 'individual community' is WHERE Peace, in Harmony, resides AND exists.

But the people, in the days of when this is being written, where STILL BLINDED by ANY of this, because of their BELIEFS. Remove the BELIEFS, removes the BLINDNESS.

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

[Age]

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)

Just like the one known as "henry quirk".

[Age]

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

This person has NO evidence NOR proof for what they claim ' is NOT natural for "man" ', but yet persists preaching this as though it is an absolute Truth.

By the way, WHY this ALWAYS 'has to be' gender specific never ceases to amuse me.

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

Although there is ACTUAL Truth in this thinking, this one BELIEVING that they KNOW (again) "man's" psychology is just laughable.

in the first: man enslaves man for the common good

in the second: man is free

I wonder if this one known as "henry quirk" actually realizes that it is 'trying to' enslave man, and human beings, for the, supposed, "common good", with those three ridiculous articles?

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

That is; a proponent of their own thing, which enslaves "others" to do as that one expects.

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

Yes you have explained 'it', 'properly,. And the MORE you explain 'it', the MORE ridiculous 'it' is.

People are their own, and can do what they like, as long as they do not take what "henry quirk" BELIEVES is his property, and if they do, then "henry quirk" BELIEVES he has a right to 'shoot 'em dead'.

So, in "henry quirks" ideal society or state, "others" are their own, just as long as they follow and abide by "henry quirk's" rules and laws.

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

So, WHY then in "henry quirk's" ideal state human beings will suffer the 'promised consequences' by OTHER human beings.

If 'one' is supposedly NOT proper of "another", then WHY can "henry quirk" CLAIM that is can whatever it wants to "another", even if, for example, the "other" just touches "henry quirk's" spatula without asking?

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)

Then I would NOT be to surprised when NO one is willing to follow NOR abide this most ridiculous of ideas proposed by "henry quirk" here.

In fact, I would suggest doing as suggested here and moving away from this JUST ANOTHER 'slave state' towards PURE FREEDOM, and the state of PURE HAPPINESS, in harmony, which is what ALL Truly WANT and DESIRE anyway.

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)

And to be 'self-directed' AND 'self-responsible' is to do what leads to True Peace, and harmony.

Killing "others" just because they touch one's stuff is NOT being 'self-directed' NOR being 'self-responsible', AT ALL. Unless, of course, one WANTS to course MORE conflict and MORE disharmony than what ALREADY EXISTS, now, when this is being written.

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

LOL But what about when one touches the stuff of a, so called, "natural rights libertarian minarchy"?

What would happen then?

-----

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

What part of 'my', in that statement, did the one known as "henry quirk" NOT UNDERSTAND here?