"There has never been true communism."

[Immanuel Can]

I sense I am wasting my time again here, but I will give you one more chance to respond with something intelligible.If you cannot, or will not, I will forgo the further pleasure of your company.

Please feel free to do whatever you so choose to do.

I do.

[henry quirk]

some thoughts on categories & employment...

a state capitalism (what 'murica has right now) encourages accumulation of wealth in increasingly fewer hands...it's a means by which wealthy folks can buy a measure of favor and insulation from the gov in the form of legislation...it's a less than stellar choice of an economy for free men

though imperfect, it's an open system: anyone can climb the ladder...anyone, at anytime...if bein' rich is your goal, there's no damn reason you can't be...it will not be easy...you'll forsake many comforts and pleasures...it is what it is


a state communism (what so many want 'murica to embrace, and which includes all the subsets [social democracy, socialism, etc.]) promises a chicken in every pot (one scrawny bird, one rusty pot), and a roof over every head (a tar paper roof over submissive [or bloody] heads)...you'll have equality (with the lowest among you), safety (eyes & ears, watchin', listenin'; jackboots to stomp wrong-doers [be careful that ain't you), and a central committee to benevolently oversee you (and keep you in line)

it's a closed system...advancement comes only as your value in keepin' the machine runnin' is proven...your wants, your needs, your goals, your dreams: sorry, brother, there is no your, there's only our, so drop the y, reject the I, and embrace the party (the one, the only)


your salvation, should you choose to pursue it, is not to be found in the state capitalism (by far, not the worst thing to saddle yourself with) or the state communism (a pretty damn awful thing by any measure)...no, only free enterprise can save you, and that means self-employin'...no man is meant to work in perpetuity for another...the apprentice becomes a master, the student becomes the teacher, the child becomes a parent

I'm sub-normal yet I successfully self-employ: me and mine have shelter (actual slate shingles), food (all kinds of good eatin'), safety (we're a gun-ownin' family), and various comforts & pleasures...most important: we're free

if I can do it: there's no reason any of you ought to be on the dole or workin' the 9 to 5

best thing of all: free enterprise works everywhere, all the time...even in the midst of a well-established state communism (what do you think gray & black markets are?)

so: stop bellyachin' and get to work

The right tone . I approve of the work ethic. Self employed is great if you can manage to find a gap in the market for your skills, and if you are flexible and can adapt to what the market needs. No snowflakes please.

as I say: I'm subnormal...a troglodyte...so: if I can self-employ, absolutely any- and every-one can self-employ

as I see it: it's less about flexibility and more about nimbleness

and: yeah, the fragile are at a disadvantage

[Belinda]

some thoughts on categories & employment...

a state capitalism (what 'murica has right now) encourages accumulation of wealth in increasingly fewer hands...it's a means by which wealthy folks can buy a measure of favor and insulation from the gov in the form of legislation...it's a less than stellar choice of an economy for free men

though imperfect, it's an open system: anyone can climb the ladder...anyone, at anytime...if bein' rich is your goal, there's no damn reason you can't be...it will not be easy...you'll forsake many comforts and pleasures...it is what it is


a state communism (what so many want 'murica to embrace, and which includes all the subsets [social democracy, socialism, etc.]) promises a chicken in every pot (one scrawny bird, one rusty pot), and a roof over every head (a tar paper roof over submissive [or bloody] heads)...you'll have equality (with the lowest among you), safety (eyes & ears, watchin', listenin'; jackboots to stomp wrong-doers [be careful that ain't you), and a central committee to benevolently oversee you (and keep you in line)

it's a closed system...advancement comes only as your value in keepin' the machine runnin' is proven...your wants, your needs, your goals, your dreams: sorry, brother, there is no your, there's only our, so drop the y, reject the I, and embrace the party (the one, the only)


your salvation, should you choose to pursue it, is not to be found in the state capitalism (by far, not the worst thing to saddle yourself with) or the state communism (a pretty damn awful thing by any measure)...no, only free enterprise can save you, and that means self-employin'...no man is meant to work in perpetuity for another...the apprentice becomes a master, the student becomes the teacher, the child becomes a parent

I'm sub-normal yet I successfully self-employ: me and mine have shelter (actual slate shingles), food (all kinds of good eatin'), safety (we're a gun-ownin' family), and various comforts & pleasures...most important: we're free

if I can do it: there's no reason any of you ought to be on the dole or workin' the 9 to 5

best thing of all: free enterprise works everywhere, all the time...even in the midst of a well-established state communism (what do you think gray & black markets are?)

so: stop bellyachin' and get to work

The right tone . I approve of the work ethic. Self employed is great if you can manage to find a gap in the market for your skills, and if you are flexible and can adapt to what the market needs. No snowflakes please.

as I say: I'm subnormal...a troglodyte...so: if I can self-employ, absolutely any- and every-one can self-employ

as I see it: it's less about flexibility and more about nimbleness

and: yeah, the fragile are at a disadvantage

"Nimble" is better than "flexible", as nimble carries no connotation of bent. There must be some self help book about how to learn to be nimble in marketing one's skills.

[henry quirk]

mostly, you just keep your brain engaged, don't let habits become habitual (if that makes sense), don't let greed run the show

[gaffo]

Why?

because unlike the ideal world - Jesus was a Communist BTW - in the real world a thug always rises to a position of power to prevent the ideal of communism.

i refer you to Stalin/Meo/ Pol Pot for the reality of result of the persute of that ideal.

if communism was a workable thing in the real world, i'd support it. its not, however Democratic Republics work as a second best, and are workable in the real world, and so i support the second best / workable solution in the real world, over the ideal unworkable.

[Immanuel Can]

Jesus was a Communist

Er...no. Not even a bit.

[henry quirk]

if communism was a workable thing in the real world, i'd support it.

only way true communism could work is if man were a herd animal

he's not, you aren't, so -- if you find true communism attractive -- you must not fully understand what true communism is

[Belinda]

if communism was a workable thing in the real world, i'd support it.

only way true communism could work is if man were a herd animal

he's not, you aren't, so -- if you find true communism attractive -- you must not fully understand what true communism is

I quite agree.

[Immanuel Can]

"The truth is that, to many people calling themselves Socialists, revolution does not mean a movement of the masses with which they hope to associate themselves; it means a set of reforms which ‘we’, the clever ones, are going to impose upon ‘them’, the Lower Orders. On the other hand, it would be a mistake to regard the book-trained Socialist as a bloodless creature entirely incapable of emotion. Though seldom giving much evidence of affection for the exploited, he is perfectly capable of displaying hatred — a sort of queer, theoretical, in vacua hatred — against the exploiters. Hence the grand old Socialist sport of denouncing the bourgeoisie. It is strange how easily almost any Socialist writer can lash himself into frenzies of rage against the class to which, by birth or by adoption, he himself invariably belongs."

-- George Orwell, in The Road to Wigan Pier.

[henry quirk]

"The truth is that, to many people calling themselves Socialists, revolution does not mean a movement of the masses with which they hope to associate themselves; it means a set of reforms which ‘we’, the clever ones, are going to impose upon ‘them’, the Lower Orders. On the other hand, it would be a mistake to regard the book-trained Socialist as a bloodless creature entirely incapable of emotion. Though seldom giving much evidence of affection for the exploited, he is perfectly capable of displaying hatred — a sort of queer, theoretical, in vacua hatred — against the exploiters. Hence the grand old Socialist sport of denouncing the bourgeoisie. It is strange how easily almost any Socialist writer can lash himself into frenzies of rage against the class to which, by birth or by adoption, he himself invariably belongs."

-- George Orwell, in The Road to Wigan Pier.

[gaffo]

Jesus was a Communist

Er...no. Not even a bit.

really? if you honestly beleive that then you don't him.

read the Didiche - it is the core of Jesus' mission.

i guess you never heard his sermon on the mount then.

sad.

[Immanuel Can]

read the Didiche - it is the core of Jesus' mission.

The Didache is not canonical, and wasn't even discovered until the 19th Century. Its provenance is uncertain. At most, it reflects the beliefs of a particular marginal community...that's probably the best that can be said about it. No Christian church regards it as equivalent to Biblical text, so it's not authoritative.

i guess you never heard his sermon on the mount then.

Hmmm...I'm suspicious you don't know it very well if you think it advocates Socialism. Enlighten me: what part of the Sermon do you imagine gives warrant for Socialism? So far as I can remember, it contains no instructions to governments at all...but I'm ready to hear whatever you think it says.

[gaffo]

read the Didiche - it is the core of Jesus' mission.

The Didache is not canonical, and wasn't even discovered until the 19th Century. Its provenance is uncertain. At most, it reflects the beliefs of a particular marginal community...that's probably the best that can be said about it. No Christian church regards it as equivalent to Biblical text, so it's not authoritative.

correct, i know my history, many better works were never included in the Canon - and sadly lesser ones were, like Leviticus.

since i am not Christian i am not under an obligation to affirm the Canon as more worthy than works outside of it.

thankfully.

i guess you never heard his sermon on the mount then.

Hmmm...I'm suspicious you don't know it very well if you think it advocates Socialism. Enlighten me: what part of the Sermon do you imagine gives warrant for Socialism? So far as I can remember, it contains no instructions to governments at all...but I'm ready to hear whatever you think it says.

Jesus sermon was the same as Amos 800 yrs prior, to care for the poor, give charity to the downtrodden, hate hypocrisy and the rich that the value thier wealth more than charity.

you missed the part of the Gospels about the rich man that asked Jesus what he must do to follow him?

last time i checked camels are too big to fit though the eye of the needle (a narrow masonry gate - 2 ft accross - not the one uses to thread with).

[gaffo]

if communism was a workable thing in the real world, i'd support it.

only way true communism could work is if man were a herd animal

he's not, you aren't, so -- if you find true communism attractive -- you must not fully understand what true communism is

i agree with you Sir.

[Immanuel Can]

since i am not Christian i am not under an obligation to affirm the Canon as more worthy than works outside of it.

I am.

i guess you never heard his sermon on the mount then.

Hmmm...I'm suspicious you don't know it very well if you think it advocates Socialism. Enlighten me: what part of the Sermon do you imagine gives warrant for Socialism? So far as I can remember, it contains no instructions to governments at all...but I'm ready to hear whatever you think it says.

Jesus sermon was the same as Amos 800 yrs prior, to care for the poor, give charity to the downtrodden, hate hypocrisy and the rich that the value thier wealth more than charity.

He gave those instructions to individuals. He was talking to you and me. He never suggested a governmental system to do the charity you and I were too selfish to do. Far less did he round up officials to strip people of their property or possessions. In fact, even the "community" in the early church did all their sharing voluntarily. Remember Peter saying to Ananias about the land he pretended to donate to the common good, "While it remained unsold, did it not remain your own? And after it was sold, was it not under your control?

Private property, with voluntary sharing is not Socialism. Socialism uses force to deprive people of property. Socialism is actually the opposite of charity -- for whereas charity says, "Share what you have," Socialism says, "You have no right to anything, and thus nothing to give."

Jesus Christ was an advocate of charity...not Socialism.

you missed the part of the Gospels about the rich man that asked Jesus what he must do to follow him?

That's not in the Sermon on the Mount, but okay. He gave those instructions to a particular man again. By extension we could, in the extreme, take it to be an injunction that you and I should do likewise, though that would be a stretch. Still, let's assume it works.

Still, you'll never get any grounds for establishing a government to take away people's money against their wishes out of that passage. For one thing, the Rich Young Ruler didn't obey. But even if he had, the instructions were not that he was to take other people's property, far less to establish a government authority to force others to give theirs up; it was to be personal and voluntary. And the Rich Young Ruler was given the option to refuse. He did, and was allowed to keep his personal property. Bad choice, for sure; but he was allowed to make it.

I don't see any forcible government redistribution in any of that. I have no idea how you do.