"There has never been true communism."

[Belinda]

Immanuel Can wrote:

That's where Communism ends...as it has, every single time in history.

To each according to need from each according to ability is where it began. It was an ideal , then an ideology, than a type of political regime.

At which stage did it go wrong?

right at the start

I suppose you would say that.

[henry quirk]

Immanuel Can wrote:



To each according to need from each according to ability is where it began. It was an ideal , then an ideology, than a type of political regime.

At which stage did it go wrong?

right at the start

I suppose you would say that.

[Advocate]

I took what i needed and gave what i could.. is the perfectly moral position. The difference is in scale and necessary compromises at that scale.

[Immanuel Can]

But ALL of them were NOT True communal living.

Where was?

Give me one case of this "true communal living."

[Immanuel Can]

right at the start

I suppose you would say that.

But that's right. The axiom you quote, B., is badly flawed. It assumes there are only two types of people the "needy" and the "able-to-provide." But that's not at all the case. There are many types of people, such as the deserving and the underserving, the industrious and the idle, the producers and the drains-on-society, the leaders and the followers, the inventive and the dull, the wise and the foolish, the achievers and the indigent, and so on. And there are gradations of all these. Society is not made up of proles and bourgeois and aristos. People do not simply "self-actualize through praxis." All of that was nonsense from the get-go. Marx had no realistic anthropology.

And so the philosophy generated thereby turns out to be naive, unrealistic, and ultimately toxic, because Marx misunderstood humanity. But then, he wasn't a very nice man himself, and was not known for his ability to listen.

[uwot]

...There are many types of people...

Indeed Mr Can; yet your 'supreme being' only has space for one type. Bit of a twat, wouldn't you say?

[Belinda]

I suppose you would say that.

But that's right. The axiom you quote, B., is badly flawed. It assumes there are only two types of people the "needy" and the "able-to-provide." But that's not at all the case. There are many types of people, such as the deserving and the underserving, the industrious and the idle, the producers and the drains-on-society, the leaders and the followers, the inventive and the dull, the wise and the foolish, the achievers and the indigent, and so on. And there are gradations of all these. Society is not made up of proles and bourgeois and aristos. People do not simply "self-actualize through praxis." All of that was nonsense from the get-go. Marx had no realistic anthropology.

And so the philosophy generated thereby turns out to be naive, unrealistic, and ultimately toxic, because Marx misunderstood humanity. But then, he wasn't a very nice man himself, and was not known for his ability to listen.

"To each according to need and from each according to ability" can't promise Utopia no regime can do so. Taken to its ultimate conclusion it means the lazy and the criminal are weak rather than evil. This is also an important Xian message, that we are to think of wrongdoers as weak. I said previously there should be incentives.
You must be as aware as anyone else that men are vastly unequal as regards incentives to do an honest day's work.There is no justification for inherited wealth that involves huge tracts of land . There is far more than incentive involved in trading in goods produced in sweat shops. Underpaid small farmers and their employees deserve fair payment for their produce. CEOs need not receive quite such a lot of reward especially when they have been less than decent.

[Immanuel Can]

Taken to its ultimate conclusion it means the lazy and the criminal are weak rather than evil.

This is neither true nor Christian. In fact, it is obviously false.

It is not the case that we are to deny the existence of evil, and excuse it as merely "weak." For "weak" implies that the doer would rather not be doing what he does, but is too "weak" to resist. That is clearly not the case; not only do many people have a strong affinity for the evil they do, but relish doing particular evils, and even invent elaborate justifications for them -- as they do in cases of sexual perversion or infanticide, for example.

Christianly speaking, their salvation from it depends on what is called in Greek "metanoia," or "change-of-mind," not merely some sort of "getting stronger" or even "trying harder." As for the lazy, the Biblical injunction, "If a man will not work, neither let him eat" sums up the right attitude.

So Marx just had human nature all wrong.

You must be as aware as anyone else that men are vastly unequal as regards incentives to do an honest day's work.

I don't think that's true, at least in North America. There, anybody who does three simple things -- finish high school, not get addicted or pregnant, and get a job of any kind and work at it -- is pretty much statistically guaranteed to end up safely above the poverty line. Maybe it's not that way elsewhere, but maybe that's other countries' fault, and they should change that. But unless you believe in military intervention, that's not something you and I can change for them.

CEOs need not receive quite such a lot of reward especially when they have been less than decent.

This is mere envy. You are not speaking of any particular CEOs here, I assume; which means you haven't the foggiest idea whether or not they've been "decent." You're judging them as if merely to have a position or wealth is proof-positive of evildoing...in other words, you're judging them unequally.

In fact, "the rich" is a transient class, and is not at all stable. People become rich, and people stop being rich, all the time. Inherited wealth lasts an average of two generations only, and it's not unusual for rich people to lose wealth. Moreover, people who create new products, or add value, or work industriously, become often become rich, as did Bill Gates, for example. Lottery winners are instantly rich.

Are you going to say that they're all evil for having worked hard, created value or won lotteries? If wealth is proof-positive of evildoing, then you would have to. But you'd owe evidence of that, if you did.

[Belinda]

Immanuel Can wrote:

Belinda wrote: ↑Sat Sep 26, 2020 8:46 am

Taken to its ultimate conclusion it means the lazy and the criminal are weak rather than evil.

Immanuel Can responded:

This is neither true nor Christian. In fact, it is obviously false.

It is not the case that we are to deny the existence of evil, and excuse it as merely "weak." For "weak" implies that the doer would rather not be doing what he does, but is too "weak" to resist. That is clearly not the case; not only do many people have a strong affinity for the evil they do, but relish doing particular evils, and even invent elaborate justifications for them -- as they do in cases of sexual perversion or infanticide, for example.

Christianly speaking, their salvation from it depends on what is called in Greek "metanoia," or "change-of-mind," not merely some sort of "getting stronger" or even "trying harder." As for the lazy, the Biblical injunction, "If a man will not work, neither let him eat" sums up the right attitude.

Augustine said evil is deprivation of good, God being all good.


But Augustine said evil is absence of good, deprivation of good.

You quoted Thessalonians "biblical injunction". You omitted the rest of the verse which puts it in context. The teachers of Christianity were to work for their livings, teach, so they could not be accused of slothful dependency on others.

2 Thessalonians 3:10 Context

7For yourselves know how ye ought to follow us: for we behaved not ourselves disorderly among you; 8Neither did we eat any man's bread for nought; but wrought with labour and travail night and day, that we might not be chargeable to any of you: 9Not because we have not power, but to make ourselves an ensample unto you to follow us. 10For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat. 11For we hear that there are some which walk among you disorderly, working not at all, but are busybodies. 12Now them that are such we command and exhort by our Lord Jesus Christ, that with quietness they work, and eat their own bread. 13But ye, brethren, be not weary in well doing.

Note well: "that we might not be chargeable to any of you" and "busybodies" who are disciples who fail to live up to Christian standards of "well doing".

[Belinda]

Taken to its ultimate conclusion it means the lazy and the criminal are weak rather than evil.

This is neither true nor Christian. In fact, it is obviously false.

It is not the case that we are to deny the existence of evil, and excuse it as merely "weak." For "weak" implies that the doer would rather not be doing what he does, but is too "weak" to resist. That is clearly not the case; not only do many people have a strong affinity for the evil they do, but relish doing particular evils, and even invent elaborate justifications for them -- as they do in cases of sexual perversion or infanticide, for example.

Christianly speaking, their salvation from it depends on what is called in Greek "metanoia," or "change-of-mind," not merely some sort of "getting stronger" or even "trying harder." As for the lazy, the Biblical injunction, "If a man will not work, neither let him eat" sums up the right attitude.

So Marx just had human nature all wrong.

You must be as aware as anyone else that men are vastly unequal as regards incentives to do an honest day's work.

I don't think that's true, at least in North America. There, anybody who does three simple things -- finish high school, not get addicted or pregnant, and get a job of any kind and work at it -- is pretty much statistically guaranteed to end up safely above the poverty line. Maybe it's not that way elsewhere, but maybe that's other countries' fault, and they should change that. But unless you believe in military intervention, that's not something you and I can change for them.

CEOs need not receive quite such a lot of reward especially when they have been less than decent.

This is mere envy. You are not speaking of any particular CEOs here, I assume; which means you haven't the foggiest idea whether or not they've been "decent." You're judging them as if merely to have a position or wealth is proof-positive of evildoing...in other words, you're judging them unequally.

In fact, "the rich" is a transient class, and is not at all stable. People become rich, and people stop being rich, all the time. Inherited wealth lasts an average of two generations only, and it's not unusual for rich people to lose wealth. Moreover, people who create new products, or add value, or work industriously, become often become rich, as did Bill Gates, for example. Lottery winners are instantly rich.

Are you going to say that they're all evil for having worked hard, created value or won lotteries? If wealth is proof-positive of evildoing, then you would have to. But you'd owe evidence of that, if you did.

It is indecent to take a huge slice of profits when ordinary shareholders have been deprived due to bad management or market forces. No, I am not envious, so stop slandering me if you please.

[Immanuel Can]

It is indecent to take a huge slice of profits when ordinary shareholders have been deprived due to bad management or market forces.

Name this "indecent" person, who is stealing from his "ordinary" shareholders. We have means to prosecute him.

No, I am not envious, so stop slandering me if you please.

If you're not envious and spiteful, why would you judge the CEO of whom you spoke, especially if you don't know who he is? All you say you know about him is that he's wealthy...so what reason, other than sheer envy, could inspire anyone to accuse him of doing evil? You don't have any other facts in hand, it seems...

Or did you have some particular one in mind, whom you can show is doing evil? Again, we can prosecute him. We have laws.

[uwot]

...why would you judge the CEO...

Indeed Mr Can, that's Jesus' job: "it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."

[Age]

But ALL of them were NOT True communal living.

Where was?

Give me one case of this "true communal living."

Finally clarifying questions, posed to me.

All the cases BEFORE the idea of, and the label of, "communism" even came into existence. Also those cases that are still in existence today, when this is being written, which have not been effected by those people, nor by those societies, that do not live by 'true communal standards'.

[Immanuel Can]

Finally clarifying questions, posed to me.

If people found your responses more clarifying, maybe they would pose more. That's a thought.

All the cases BEFORE the idea of, and the label of, "communism" even came into existence. Also those cases that are still in existence today, when this is being written, which have not been effected by those people, nor by those societies, that do not live by 'true communal standards'.

This doesn't "clarify" either.

I ask again, "Which community?" -- specifically...and by name, please. The definition you try to foist on us here doesn't even tell us whether you think the Greek or Roman or Persian empires were "true communism." It doesn't mention anything in specific at all, in fact.

See? If you clarified, people would ask you.

[Age]

Finally clarifying questions, posed to me.

If people found your responses more clarifying, maybe they would pose more. That's a thought.

If people do NOT find my responses more clarifying, then that would be a sign to do 'what', EXACTLY?

Give up?
Walk away? Or,
Pose more clarifying questions?

To me, if I respond more clarifying, then that would suggest LESS clarifying questions would be posed, to me.

Just maybe I purposely do NOT clarify FULLY, for very specific reasons?

This is ANOTHER thought, which could be thought about, answered, and/or CLARIFIED, correct?

All the cases BEFORE the idea of, and the label of, "communism" even came into existence. Also those cases that are still in existence today, when this is being written, which have not been effected by those people, nor by those societies, that do not live by 'true communal standards'.

This doesn't "clarify" either.

WHY NOT?

And, if that did NOT 'clarify' either, then what I would suggest one does now; is just ask ANOTHER clarifying question. I also thee more specific thee clarifying question, for thee very actual specific answer, which is being sought, then the MORE SPECIFIC the CLARIFYING answer will be.

(What is becoming CLEARLY OBVIOUS is that only those who are Truly CURIOUS and OPEN, and/or those who Truly BELIEVE that there is an actual True ANSWER, will ask VERY SPECIFIC CLARIFYING QUESTIONS. The rest will just write what they ALREADY BELIEVE is true.

I ask again, "Which community?" -- specifically...and by name, please.

Ah okay, now we are getting somewhere. The True 'aboriginal communities'.

The definition you try to foist on us here doesn't even tell us whether you think the Greek or Roman or Persian empires were "true communism."

Firstly, just so I KNOW, for sure, that you are correct here, what is the actual 'definition', which I am supposedly imposing on 'you'?

Also, do you know WHY 'you', human beings, in the days of when this is being written, are so short-sighted and so narrowed-viewed to only think about things like, for example, so called, "greek", "roman", or "persian" empires in relation to 'true communism"?

If you do NOT yet know WHY, then it is because you tend to only LOOK AT and SEE things, which you have only previously learned about.

The, so called, "greatest thinkers", "seers", or "visionaries" of the human being species were NOT because they LOOKED At things from what they have previously learned or experienced, which comes from within the brain, but because they LOOKED AT things from a Truly OPEN perspective, which comes from the Mind.

It doesn't mention anything in specific at all, in fact.

It was NOT meant to.

I was ONLY answering the actual question. posed to me.

In fact you asked me two questions, which were;
Where was?

And,

Give me one case of this "true communal living."

Now, to your first question I was going to say; On earth. But I thought the obviousness of this might annoy you, and or "others". So I did not write that.

Your second question only asked for 'one case', but I decided to give you two cases instead. So I did write them.

Now, besides this fact, the other fact, which I find is the really important fact, is that 'we' have YET to decide on what 'true communal living' IS, or involves'.

In fact, until this definition is AGREED UPON and ACCEPTED, then asking the clarifying questions you have here is REALLY just a complete waste.

Where was?

"See? If you clarified, people would ask you.

This does NOT make ANY sense, to me.

What does "See?" with a question mark mean? What is that in relation to EXACTLY?

I can SEE that my previous answer to your clarifying question does NOT mention anything specific at all because;

1. It was NOT meant to.
2. Your question did NOT SEEK anything specific at all.
3. We are NOT even YET in agreement with what 'true communal living' actually means.

But, you might be meaning some thing else here when you wrote; "See?"

Now, what does "If you clarified, people would ask you." actually mean?

Did you mean; "If you clarified, people would NOT ask you", instead?

Also, were you meant to have a question mark at the end, or were you telling me this?

And, WHY did you underline the word "clarified" here?

By the way, if what you meant was; 'If I clarified, then people would NOT have to ask me to clarify', then this is obviously true.

But because 'you', human beings, ALL have your very own specific views and thoughts about ALL sorts of different things, then it is just about IMPOSSIBLE to KNOW each and EVERY one of your OWN very particular views and thoughts about things, to be able to CLARIFY for EACH and EVERY one of 'you', at the present moment.

This means that until I can CLARIFY with you, from you, individually what you are saying, and/or asking for, then I can NOT clarify with EACH and EVERY one of you sufficiently enough, without you asking me for FURTHER CLARIFICATION.

Remember, EVERY one of you does NOT have thee PERFECTLY CLEAR PICTURE, YET. So, working through ALL of your narrowed, blurred, muddied, and distorted visions and field of view of things NEEDS to be done BEFORE thee True and Accurate Whole picture can be presented to you, in UNDERSTANDABLE FORM.