Are Communism, Liberalism and Social Justice one in the same?

[ptsdkid]

The following excerpts come from the book “America’s Thirty Years War” by Balint Vazsonyi. Pgs. 55-59.

The following will show you how the search for and implementation of “social justice” leads from liberalism/socialism to communism.

Advocates of ‘social justice’ seek to eliminate poverty, eliminate suffering, and eliminate differences among people. They propose to eliminate suffering through various government decrees and executive orders. These same people speculate about “the elimination of differences,” a truly disturbing phenomenon. I will refer to those here using the word ’social’ as having “Compartmentalized Brain Syndrome,” or CBS for short.

Multiculturalism is code for the gradual elimination of all Western traditions. The same CBS can be said of those speaking of “the downtrodden,” “the dispossessed,” and “the disenfranchised” in today’s America. CBS sufferers nonetheless refuse to notice that people are different, and that differences of abilities, aspirations, family circumstances, and a variety of other factors will always produce a wide range of results. Alternatively, they view people in terms of conditions that existed in times past, as if slavery or segregation were still with us, or women’s suffrage not yet adopted.

The ultimate nonsense is the search for social justice. It is this presumptuous implication that, were social justice possible, certain persons are better able than others to judge what it is. (Incidentally, how does such an implication square with the doctrine that we are all the same?)

According to the only theory in existence, to attain a satisfactory state of social justice, social tensions--the source of dynamism--are to be eliminated. Once that is achieved, society will of course be static. We have to work diligently, the prescription goes, to attain a state of being with no social tensions. The states so characterized as “communism.”

Unwittingly, perhaps, in many cases, but persons who advocate social justice advocate communism. Taking social justice to its logical conclusion, nothing less will suffice.

The essence of communism is social justice--the elimination of poverty, the elimination of poverty, the elimination of suffering, the elimination of all differences that erect walls between people. The essence of communism is the global village, I.e. Hillary’s book ‘It Takes a Village’ where everyone benefits equally within an interdependent and socially conscious world. The essence of communism is the rearing of children by the village, i.e. does Castro’s Cuba ring a bell? Even Hitler’s version, which he called “national socialism,” was intended to deliver great and lasting benefits to the masses, once a few million redundant people were, well, eliminated.

Once we reach the true state of communism, we are told, there will not be poverty. There will not be suffering. There will not be differences in the living standards of people. Children will never be hungry. There will not be bonuses for corporate executives. There will no longer be some with spacious homes and others homeless. There will no longer be some who cannot afford health care and others who have elective surgery. There will not be people who are disadvantaged.
Nor will there be people who can do as they please.
There will be Social Justice.
If this does not correspond to the idea of social justice, what does? For there must be an end state, or the pursuit of “social” justice is nothing more than the excuse for a permanent state of “social”--warfare.

Social warfare clearly undermines domestic tranquility. But the even greater evil is that it fuels discontent and induces a permanent state of hopelessness by setting unattainable goals. And unattained they shall remain, except of course in communism--if you believe the theory.
Perhaps some do.
But the rest of us need to face the fact that the Rule of Law and Search for Social Justice cannot exist side-by-side because social justice requires that those who possess more of anything have it taken away from them. The Rule of Law will not permit that. It exists to guarantee conditions in which more people can have more liberty, more rights, more possessions. Prophets of social justice--communists, whether by that or any other name--focus on who should have less. Because they have nothing to give, they can only take away. First, they take away opportunity. Next, they take away possessions. In the end, they have to take away life itself. (We all know of communism’s legacy in taking away life).

Still having trouble defining “Social Justice”, and with the labeling of yourself as a communist?

Here are the three determining factors in defining “Social Justice”:

(1) somebody should have the power to determine what you can have, or…

(2) somebody should have the power to determine what you cannot have, or…

(3) somebody should have the power to determine what to take away from you in order to give it to others who receive it without any obligation to earn it.

I wonder if we’ll see a rush to the personal profile section where we might just get to see the changing of the liberal label to the new and improved one of communist. You’re only fooling yourself.

 

[Iriemon]

The following excerpts come from the book “America’s Thirty Years War” by Balint Vazsonyi. Pgs. 55-59.

The following will show you how the search for and implementation of “social justice” leads from liberalism/socialism to communism.

Advocates of ‘social justice’ seek to eliminate poverty, eliminate suffering, and eliminate differences among people. They propose to eliminate suffering through various government decrees and executive orders. These same people speculate about “the elimination of differences,” a truly disturbing phenomenon. I will refer to those here using the word ’social’ as having “Compartmentalized Brain Syndrome,” or CBS for short.

Multiculturalism is code for the gradual elimination of all Western traditions. The same CBS can be said of those speaking of “the downtrodden,” “the dispossessed,” and “the disenfranchised” in today’s America. CBS sufferers nonetheless refuse to notice that people are different, and that differences of abilities, aspirations, family circumstances, and a variety of other factors will always produce a wide range of results. Alternatively, they view people in terms of conditions that existed in times past, as if slavery or segregation were still with us, or women’s suffrage not yet adopted.

The ultimate nonsense is the search for social justice. It is this presumptuous implication that, were social justice possible, certain persons are better able than others to judge what it is. (Incidentally, how does such an implication square with the doctrine that we are all the same?)

According to the only theory in existence, to attain a satisfactory state of social justice, social tensions--the source of dynamism--are to be eliminated. Once that is achieved, society will of course be static. We have to work diligently, the prescription goes, to attain a state of being with no social tensions. The states so characterized as “communism.”

Unwittingly, perhaps, in many cases, but persons who advocate social justice advocate communism. Taking social justice to its logical conclusion, nothing less will suffice.

The essence of communism is social justice--the elimination of poverty, the elimination of poverty, the elimination of suffering, the elimination of all differences that erect walls between people. The essence of communism is the global village, I.e. Hillary’s book ‘It Takes a Village’ where everyone benefits equally within an interdependent and socially conscious world. The essence of communism is the rearing of children by the village, i.e. does Castro’s Cuba ring a bell? Even Hitler’s version, which he called “national socialism,” was intended to deliver great and lasting benefits to the masses, once a few million redundant people were, well, eliminated.

Once we reach the true state of communism, we are told, there will not be poverty. There will not be suffering. There will not be differences in the living standards of people. Children will never be hungry. There will not be bonuses for corporate executives. There will no longer be some with spacious homes and others homeless. There will no longer be some who cannot afford health care and others who have elective surgery. There will not be people who are disadvantaged.
Nor will there be people who can do as they please.
There will be Social Justice.
If this does not correspond to the idea of social justice, what does? For there must be an end state, or the pursuit of “social” justice is nothing more than the excuse for a permanent state of “social”--warfare.

Social warfare clearly undermines domestic tranquility. But the even greater evil is that it fuels discontent and induces a permanent state of hopelessness by setting unattainable goals. And unattained they shall remain, except of course in communism--if you believe the theory.
Perhaps some do.
But the rest of us need to face the fact that the Rule of Law and Search for Social Justice cannot exist side-by-side because social justice requires that those who possess more of anything have it taken away from them. The Rule of Law will not permit that. It exists to guarantee conditions in which more people can have more liberty, more rights, more possessions. Prophets of social justice--communists, whether by that or any other name--focus on who should have less. Because they have nothing to give, they can only take away. First, they take away opportunity. Next, they take away possessions. In the end, they have to take away life itself. (We all know of communism’s legacy in taking away life).

Still having trouble defining “Social Justice”, and with the labeling of yourself as a communist?

Here are the three determining factors in defining “Social Justice”:

(1) somebody should have the power to determine what you can have, or…

(2) somebody should have the power to determine what you cannot have, or…

(3) somebody should have the power to determine what to take away from you in order to give it to others who receive it without any obligation to earn it.

I wonder if we’ll see a rush to the personal profile section where we might just get to see the changing of the liberal label to the new and improved one of communist. You’re only fooling yourself.

No.
.......

 

[mikhail]

No

Is a rabbit the same as a cat?

 

[RightOfCenter]

The following excerpts come from the book “America’s Thirty Years War” by Balint Vazsonyi. Pgs. 55-59.

The following will show you how the search for and implementation of “social justice” leads from liberalism/socialism to communism.

Advocates of ‘social justice’ seek to eliminate poverty, eliminate suffering, and eliminate differences among people. They propose to eliminate suffering through various government decrees and executive orders. These same people speculate about “the elimination of differences,” a truly disturbing phenomenon. I will refer to those here using the word ’social’ as having “Compartmentalized Brain Syndrome,” or CBS for short.

Multiculturalism is code for the gradual elimination of all Western traditions. The same CBS can be said of those speaking of “the downtrodden,” “the dispossessed,” and “the disenfranchised” in today’s America. CBS sufferers nonetheless refuse to notice that people are different, and that differences of abilities, aspirations, family circumstances, and a variety of other factors will always produce a wide range of results. Alternatively, they view people in terms of conditions that existed in times past, as if slavery or segregation were still with us, or women’s suffrage not yet adopted.

The ultimate nonsense is the search for social justice. It is this presumptuous implication that, were social justice possible, certain persons are better able than others to judge what it is. (Incidentally, how does such an implication square with the doctrine that we are all the same?)

According to the only theory in existence, to attain a satisfactory state of social justice, social tensions--the source of dynamism--are to be eliminated. Once that is achieved, society will of course be static. We have to work diligently, the prescription goes, to attain a state of being with no social tensions. The states so characterized as “communism.”

Unwittingly, perhaps, in many cases, but persons who advocate social justice advocate communism. Taking social justice to its logical conclusion, nothing less will suffice.

The essence of communism is social justice--the elimination of poverty, the elimination of poverty, the elimination of suffering, the elimination of all differences that erect walls between people. The essence of communism is the global village, I.e. Hillary’s book ‘It Takes a Village’ where everyone benefits equally within an interdependent and socially conscious world. The essence of communism is the rearing of children by the village, i.e. does Castro’s Cuba ring a bell? Even Hitler’s version, which he called “national socialism,” was intended to deliver great and lasting benefits to the masses, once a few million redundant people were, well, eliminated.

Once we reach the true state of communism, we are told, there will not be poverty. There will not be suffering. There will not be differences in the living standards of people. Children will never be hungry. There will not be bonuses for corporate executives. There will no longer be some with spacious homes and others homeless. There will no longer be some who cannot afford health care and others who have elective surgery. There will not be people who are disadvantaged.
Nor will there be people who can do as they please.
There will be Social Justice.
If this does not correspond to the idea of social justice, what does? For there must be an end state, or the pursuit of “social” justice is nothing more than the excuse for a permanent state of “social”--warfare.

Social warfare clearly undermines domestic tranquility. But the even greater evil is that it fuels discontent and induces a permanent state of hopelessness by setting unattainable goals. And unattained they shall remain, except of course in communism--if you believe the theory.
Perhaps some do.
But the rest of us need to face the fact that the Rule of Law and Search for Social Justice cannot exist side-by-side because social justice requires that those who possess more of anything have it taken away from them. The Rule of Law will not permit that. It exists to guarantee conditions in which more people can have more liberty, more rights, more possessions. Prophets of social justice--communists, whether by that or any other name--focus on who should have less. Because they have nothing to give, they can only take away. First, they take away opportunity. Next, they take away possessions. In the end, they have to take away life itself. (We all know of communism’s legacy in taking away life).

Still having trouble defining “Social Justice”, and with the labeling of yourself as a communist?

Here are the three determining factors in defining “Social Justice”:

(1) somebody should have the power to determine what you can have, or…

(2) somebody should have the power to determine what you cannot have, or…

(3) somebody should have the power to determine what to take away from you in order to give it to others who receive it without any obligation to earn it.

I wonder if we’ll see a rush to the personal profile section where we might just get to see the changing of the liberal label to the new and improved one of communist. You’re only fooling yourself.

Wow, a post from you that I actually agree with, though I wouldn't say communism necessarily equals liberalism as communism is an extreme form of liberalism.

 

[ptsdkid]

Wow, a post from you that I actually agree with, though I wouldn't say communism necessarily equals liberalism as communism is an extreme form of liberalism.

***Great to see that you're coming along so nicely. What are the chances that you'll be changing your profile from slightly conservative to very conservative like mine? Go ahead, it won't hurt.

 

[RightOfCenter]

***Great to see that you're coming along so nicely. What are the chances that you'll be changing your profile from slightly conservative to very conservative like mine? Go ahead, it won't hurt.

I do consider myself very conservative on economic issues, just not social ones. I figured slightly conservative would be a good compromise.

 

[niftydrifty]

The answer is no.

How have you been hoodwinked? Intellectual laziness.

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

They're not the same at all.

Communism and Liberalism are directly incompatible... as Liberalism is a theory of the government protecting peoples' rights and freedoms and Communism, in theory, proposes no government at all. In practice, it is the exact opposite of Liberalism-- more akin to Fascism with a different symbol-set.

As for "social justice", both Communism and Liberalism interfere with the pursuit of justice-- the Communist by refusing to honor those who give more to society, and the Liberal by refusing to punish those who give nothing.

 

[Kandahar]

The excerpts that you cited are self-contradictory:

If this statement is true:

Advocates of ‘social justice’ seek to eliminate poverty, eliminate suffering, and eliminate differences among people.

And the implication of this statement is true:

Once we reach the true state of communism, we are told, there will not be poverty. There will not be suffering. There will not be differences in the living standards of people. Children will never be hungry. There will not be bonuses for corporate executives. There will no longer be some with spacious homes and others homeless. There will no longer be some who cannot afford health care and others who have elective surgery. There will not be people who are disadvantaged.

...then this one cannot also be true:

Unwittingly, perhaps, in many cases, but persons who advocate social justice advocate communism. Taking social justice to its logical conclusion, nothing less will suffice.

If "social justice" advocates are focused on eliminating poverty, and communism will NOT eliminate poverty (as the phrase "we are told" clearly implies), then it doesn't make sense that communism is the logical conclusion of social justice.

Besides, how is taking the most extreme implementation of ANY belief "the logical conclusion?" Only an demagogue could possibly see it that way. Communism is no more the logical conclusion of social justice, than the Taliban is the logical conclusion of social conservatism, or feudalism is the logical conclusion of fiscal conservatism. Take all things in moderation.

 

[Feela]

Libertarian communism is the same as social justice but liberalism has little to do with it.
And liberalism has nothing to do with socialism btw.

 

[Feela]

In practice, it is the exact opposite of Liberalism-- more akin to Fascism with a different symbol-set.

That is a very unfair assumption, you are just talking about authoritarian attempts to create communism, there is nothing to say communism based on free agreements creates this situation.
In fact seeing as communism just means distribution on need instead of some artificial and always extremely inaccurate measure of worth, then anytime when you recieve things because you need them and not because you pay for them is a form of communism.

As for "social justice", both Communism and Liberalism interfere with the pursuit of justice-- the Communist by refusing to honor those who give more to society, and the Liberal by refusing to punish those who give nothing.

Communism recognises that production is a social process and every good embodies the combined labour and ideas of generations and millions of people, so it is impossible to calculate how much someone gives to society.

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

That is a very unfair assumption, you are just talking about authoritarian attempts to create communism, there is nothing to say communism based on free agreements creates this situation.

That's because authorian attempts to impose Communism were the only Communist movements that ever acheived even moderate success-- even if they sold out their ideals in the process. The type of society Communism idealizes is impossible.

In fact seeing as communism just means distribution on need instead of some artificial ... measure of worth...

Problem is, you cannot approach an economic system from distribution alone. In order to make distribution on need, you must make certain assumptions about how production is to be operated.

And, if I recall correctly, Communism is just as much concerned about how goods and services are produced as how they are distributed-- "control by the workers" and so forth.

Communism recognises that production is a social process and every good embodies the combined labour and ideas of generations and millions of people, so it is impossible to calculate how much someone gives to society.

In other words, it insists that everyone is equal despite all evidence to the contrary.

I agree that production is a social process, and that every great man owes his success at least partially to those who came before him-- and those who helped him become a great man-- but it is utter folly to deny that a great man is fundamentally different from lesser men.

 

[Feela]

That's because authorian attempts to impose Communism were the only Communist movements that ever acheived even moderate success-- even if they sold out their ideals in the process. The type of society Communism idealizes is impossible.

How did they achieve any success? And that is not quite true, the CNT and Makhnovists were quite successfuls they were just externally put down.
And as Kropotkin said, any kind of arrangement where things are distributed by need and people freely contribute according to their abilities is successul communism.

Problem is, you cannot approach an economic system from distribution alone. In order to make distribution on need, you must make certain assumptions about how production is to be operated.

Hence the part "from each according to his ability."

And, if I recall correctly, Communism is just as much concerned about how goods and services are produced as how they are distributed-- "control by the workers" and so forth.

Well obviously worker's control is the only libertarian kind of organisation and the only one worth talking about.

In other words, it insists that everyone is equal despite all evidence to the contrary.

No it just recognises you cannot work out the contribution of anyone so it is best to allow people to take what they need of abundant goods and ration scarce goods.
Btw production would be very different in anarcho-communism.

I agree that production is a social process, and that every great man owes his success at least partially to those who came before him-- and those who helped him become a great man-- but it is utter folly to deny that a great man is fundamentally different from lesser men.

What do you mean a great man? How do you become a "great man."
Most of the time it is education, upbringing, social conditions etc in anarcho-communism everyone would have to opportunity to fulling realise their potential.

 

[Kandahar]

How did they achieve any success? And that is not quite true, the CNT and Makhnovists were quite successfuls they were just externally put down.

I don't think many people would consider being externally put down to be "quite successful"...

And as Kropotkin said, any kind of arrangement where things are distributed by need and people freely contribute according to their abilities is successul communism.

The only time it's ever worked is on extremely small-scales...and even that is debatable. Native American tribes that were communists had horrible standards of living. Nearly all small-scale communes fail within a few decades at most.

Hence the part "from each according to his ability."

Why should anyone work hard if they won't personally be rewarded for it?

Well obviously worker's control is the only libertarian kind of organisation and the only one worth talking about.

The only libertarian kind of organization would be allowing people to establish their businesses and hire/fire workers as they please. If the owners are the workers, fine. If not, fine.

No it just recognises you cannot work out the contribution of anyone so it is best to allow people to take what they need of abundant goods and ration scarce goods.

There wouldn't BE any abundant resources if people were allowed to take what they "needed." Who determines which resources are scarce, if there isn't a massive government? Who determines how to ration them, if there isn't a massive government?

Btw production would be very different in anarcho-communism.

Production would be nearly non-existent in any form of communism.

What do you mean a great man? How do you become a "great man."
Most of the time it is education, upbringing, social conditions etc in anarcho-communism everyone would have to opportunity to fulling realise their potential.

We can provide everyone a good education and the opportunity to succeed, without abandoning capitalism and turning businesses over to the workers. The two concepts are hardly related at all.

 

[The Mark]

I do not currently feel qualified to knowledgeably answer the poll question, so I did not.

However, it is my opinion that, at the very least, all three are somewhat related.

 

[dragonslayer]

The following excerpts come from the book “America’s Thirty Years War” by Balint Vazsonyi. Pgs. 55-59.

The following will show you how the search for and implementation of “social justice” leads from liberalism/socialism to communism.

Advocates of ‘social justice’ seek to eliminate poverty, eliminate suffering, and eliminate differences among people. They propose to eliminate suffering through various government decrees and executive orders. These same people speculate about “the elimination of differences,” a truly disturbing phenomenon. I will refer to those here using the word ’social’ as having “Compartmentalized Brain Syndrome,” or CBS for short.

Multiculturalism is code for the gradual elimination of all Western traditions. The same CBS can be said of those speaking of “the downtrodden,” “the dispossessed,” and “the disenfranchised” in today’s America. CBS sufferers nonetheless refuse to notice that people are different, and that differences of abilities, aspirations, family circumstances, and a variety of other factors will always produce a wide range of results. Alternatively, they view people in terms of conditions that existed in times past, as if slavery or segregation were still with us, or women’s suffrage not yet adopted.

The ultimate nonsense is the search for social justice. It is this presumptuous implication that, were social justice possible, certain persons are better able than others to judge what it is. (Incidentally, how does such an implication square with the doctrine that we are all the same?)

According to the only theory in existence, to attain a satisfactory state of social justice, social tensions--the source of dynamism--are to be eliminated. Once that is achieved, society will of course be static. We have to work diligently, the prescription goes, to attain a state of being with no social tensions. The states so characterized as “communism.”

Unwittingly, perhaps, in many cases, but persons who advocate social justice advocate communism. Taking social justice to its logical conclusion, nothing less will suffice.

The essence of communism is social justice--the elimination of poverty, the elimination of poverty, the elimination of suffering, the elimination of all differences that erect walls between people. The essence of communism is the global village, I.e. Hillary’s book ‘It Takes a Village’ where everyone benefits equally within an interdependent and socially conscious world. The essence of communism is the rearing of children by the village, i.e. does Castro’s Cuba ring a bell? Even Hitler’s version, which he called “national socialism,” was intended to deliver great and lasting benefits to the masses, once a few million redundant people were, well, eliminated.

Once we reach the true state of communism, we are told, there will not be poverty. There will not be suffering. There will not be differences in the living standards of people. Children will never be hungry. There will not be bonuses for corporate executives. There will no longer be some with spacious homes and others homeless. There will no longer be some who cannot afford health care and others who have elective surgery. There will not be people who are disadvantaged.
Nor will there be people who can do as they please.
There will be Social Justice.
If this does not correspond to the idea of social justice, what does? For there must be an end state, or the pursuit of “social” justice is nothing more than the excuse for a permanent state of “social”--warfare.

Social warfare clearly undermines domestic tranquility. But the even greater evil is that it fuels discontent and induces a permanent state of hopelessness by setting unattainable goals. And unattained they shall remain, except of course in communism--if you believe the theory.
Perhaps some do.
But the rest of us need to face the fact that the Rule of Law and Search for Social Justice cannot exist side-by-side because social justice requires that those who possess more of anything have it taken away from them. The Rule of Law will not permit that. It exists to guarantee conditions in which more people can have more liberty, more rights, more possessions. Prophets of social justice--communists, whether by that or any other name--focus on who should have less. Because they have nothing to give, they can only take away. First, they take away opportunity. Next, they take away possessions. In the end, they have to take away life itself. (We all know of communism’s legacy in taking away life).

Still having trouble defining “Social Justice”, and with the labeling of yourself as a communist?

Here are the three determining factors in defining “Social Justice”:

(1) somebody should have the power to determine what you can have, or…

(2) somebody should have the power to determine what you cannot have, or…

(3) somebody should have the power to determine what to take away from you in order to give it to others who receive it without any obligation to earn it.

I wonder if we’ll see a rush to the personal profile section where we might just get to see the changing of the liberal label to the new and improved one of communist. You’re only fooling yourself.

WHAT A LOAD OF F__KING CRAP. WHAT SCHOOL ARE YOU A PROFESSOR AT, AND WHAT DO YOU TEACH,,, CREATIVE FICTION????

YOU DESERVE A GOOD GRADE IN FICTION WRITING AND AN F IN LOGIC.

I was teacher of Political Science and soclal studies and what you are saying i pure BS. what you mentor writes is pure crap. No where has Communism develeped in the manor described. The origin of Communism has come from the very rich miniority screwing over the very poor majority and the majority finally kicking ***. It has nothing to do with liberalis changing to commmunism.

What I am talking about is social justice in a places where the rich excessively eploit the poor majority and kill themselves. Russia, Cuba, China, south America,

There is no progression, there is very very severe need, and then there is a revolution.

Try reading. Go to College and study history and political science. Take a class in Russian History, or Chinese History.

communism only come to places it is needed, and it is not needed in the United States and will never be unless you become president.

I read parts of your book, and my friends and I had a good laugh.

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

WHAT A LOAD OF F__KING CRAP. WHAT SCHOOL ARE YOU A PROFESSOR AT, AND WHAT DO YOU TEACH,,, CREATIVE FICTION????

YOU DESERVE A GOOD GRADE IN FICTION WRITING AND AN F IN LOGIC.

Moderator's Warning:

You are an educated man and a teacher. Please draw upon those talents to set a better example than this.

 

[ptsdkid]

WHAT A LOAD OF F__KING CRAP. WHAT SCHOOL ARE YOU A PROFESSOR AT, AND WHAT DO YOU TEACH,,, CREATIVE FICTION????

***I come to you as a self annoited professor of life experience and common sense.

YOU DESERVE A GOOD GRADE IN FICTION WRITING AND AN F IN LOGIC.

***I abhor fiction anything. Please don't beam up before reading Balint's book. Balint happened to have lived in Europe under communist rule. So the guy knows of what he preaches.

I was teacher of Political Science and soclal studies and what you are saying i pure BS. what you mentor writes is pure crap. No where has Communism develeped in the manor described. The origin of Communism has come from the very rich miniority screwing over the very poor majority and the majority finally kicking ***. It has nothing to do with liberalis changing to commmunism.

***That is a lie. Communism developed under Bolshevik rule--as can be seen in it's entirety by reading the book. What Balint points out in the book is that liberalism in America has taken the very steps toward seeking social justice as did the communists in Europe. You need to take this obsession off of the term communism and re-focus it on this need for socialists and liberals to seek social justice at any cost.

What I am talking about is social justice in a places where the rich excessively eploit the poor majority and kill themselves. Russia, Cuba, China, south America,

***Can't disagree with you here. Now try focussing in on the Democratic/liberal agenda inside the United States, to see how their need to multiculturalize, to politcally correct, and to seek social justice coincides with the end game as stated in the communist manifesto.

There is no progression, there is very very severe need, and then there is a revolution.

***There is always this progression until it is tempoarily truncated with the election of Republicans/Conservatives into office. We will always exercise the Rule of Law.

Try reading. Go to College and study history and political science. Take a class in Russian History, or Chinese History.

***That was funny, I have been reading, studying and living political science on a full time basis for 40 years, probably going back to before you were born.

communism only come to places it is needed, and it is not needed in the United States and will never be unless you become president.

***That is my point of presenting this post to debate politics. The role of we Conservatives is to make sure communism doesn't spread any further than it has already. We do understand that the majority of universities in America have already caved into being run by Communist/Marxist professors. Just read David Limbaugh's book "The Professors" to get an eye opener to that fact. Or read Bernie Goldberg's book "The top 100 people who are screwing up this country".

I read parts of your book, and my friends and I had a good laugh.

***Excuse me if I don't share that laugh. I'm too busy pushing these social justice freaks into the abyss of no return. Have you extended your political studies to include the social justice implementation of most of Europe? It seems that Europe is currently looking to further progress by using social justice as their ideological paradigm. Looks like its working wonders with their penchant to put the influxes of Muslims on their welfare roles. Europe happens to have the lowest birth rate per capita in the world. Social justice fanatics can't seem to get it right. Europe is dying rather quickly thanks in large part to a communist/social justice ideology. Liberals in America are following their very lead.

 

[Feela]

I don't think many people would consider being externally put down to be "quite successful"...

Well it took the combined efforts of Fascists, Stalinists and the Western plutocracies to put down the CNT, the Bolshevik counter-revolution put down the Makhnovists.

The only time it's ever worked is on extremely small-scales...and even that is debatable. Native American tribes that were communists had horrible standards of living. Nearly all small-scale communes fail within a few decades at most.

Communism has been a part of humanity for millenia, long before any real kind of private property existed, any time you get according to your need is communism.
The royal national lifeboat institution is the excellent example Kropotkin gives. They will save you because you are in need not because you can pay, they are also an excellent example of decentralised free association.

Why should anyone work hard if they won't personally be rewarded for it?

Because they would have free reign to develop their creative potential. Human's naturally take great pride in creative work, it is only capitalism and other statist, class systems that turn work to disutility.

The only libertarian kind of organization would be allowing people to establish their businesses and hire/fire workers as they please. If the owners are the workers, fine. If not, fine.

For people to work for others ion a mass scale, a few must own the means of production and most have no access to them, this is capitalism, this requires massive, ongoing state intervention, it is hardly libertarian.

There wouldn't BE any abundant resources if people were allowed to take what they "needed."

Why? You would only take what you need, you have little worry for the future and be living in peace.

Who determines which resources are scarce, if there isn't a massive government?

The people of the commune in free agreement.

Who determines how to ration them, if there isn't a massive government?

The people in free agreement.

Production would be nearly non-existent in any form of communism.

Right, that is why both the CNT and Makhnovists were extremely productive and they were at war.

We can provide everyone a good education and the opportunity to succeed, without abandoning capitalism and turning businesses over to the workers. The two concepts are hardly related at all.

You can provide the kind of education we have not real, worthwile education.

 

[RightOfCenter]

The people of the commune in free agreement.
The people in free agreement.

And if people can not agree? What is the answer then?

 

[Synch]

Feela, I knew you were a Communist although you were in incessant denial.

 

[Kandahar]

Well it took the combined efforts of Fascists, Stalinists and the Western plutocracies to put down the CNT, the Bolshevik counter-revolution put down the Makhnovists.

That still doesn't make them successful examples of communism. At best, they're examples of communism where it isn't KNOWN if they would have been successful. At worst, they're failures just like every other example.

Communism has been a part of humanity for millenia, long before any real kind of private property existed, any time you get according to your need is communism.

Poverty has been a part of humanity for millennia too. Coincidence?

The royal national lifeboat institution is the excellent example Kropotkin gives. They will save you because you are in need not because you can pay, they are also an excellent example of decentralised free association.

That isn't communism. There is a BIG difference between charity and communism.

Because they would have free reign to develop their creative potential. Human's naturally take great pride in creative work, it is only capitalism and other statist, class systems that turn work to disutility.

A nice thought, but that isn't the way the real world works. Somebody needs to pick up the garbage and clean the **** out of water. How many people do you think would choose to "develop their creative potential" in those jobs, if they had the choice?

For people to work for others ion a mass scale, a few must own the means of production and most have no access to them, this is capitalism, this requires massive, ongoing state intervention, it is hardly libertarian.

That doesn't require massive state intervention. All it takes is for the state to protect property rights and leave people alone.

Why? You would only take what you need, you have little worry for the future and be living in peace.

Who determines how much I need? If I can take however much I *need*, I'll actually take however much I *want*. Maybe I'll even go beyond that, and take it ALL.

The people of the commune in free agreement.
The people in free agreement.

And how is that different from a government?

Right, that is why both the CNT and Makhnovists were extremely productive and they were at war.

Almost anybody can be productive during war, especially when your sample size is only a couple years. I'm talking about sustainable production over a period of several decades at minimum, during peacetime.

You can provide the kind of education we have not real, worthwile education.

No, you can provide real, worthwhile education without communism. Europe, Canada, Japan, Australia, and New Zealand all do it.

 

[Feela]

Feela, I knew you were a Communist although you were in incessant denial.

When was I in denial?
I'm an anarchist without adjectives, panarchist or a general libertarian socialist who drifts between different types of libertarian socialism.

I do think libertarian communism is probably the best method, but I'm very unsure, hence I'm just a general anarchist without adjectives.
As long as it is decentralised and free you can count me in.

Btw I know you are a rampant statist even if you deny it.

 

[Feela]

That isn't communism. There is a BIG difference between charity and communism.

No it is communism as the Peter Kropotkin,who knows a little bit more about communism than you, said.
This is the kind of thing anarcho-communism is based on.
Now you can have your right-wing definitions but these are irrelevant to actual communists.

A nice thought, but that isn't the way the real world works. Somebody needs to pick up the garbage and clean the **** out of water. How many people do you think would choose to "develop their creative potential" in those jobs, if they had the choice?

Most can be done by machines.

That doesn't require massive state intervention. All it takes is for the state to protect property rights and leave people alone.

No it needs the state to deprive most of their access to the means of production and maintain this situation, this is the only way people will work for capitalists.

Who determines how much I need? If I can take however much I *need*, I'll actually take however much I *want*. Maybe I'll even go beyond that, and take it ALL.

Why would you do that when you don't have to worry about the future and live in peace and solidarity with your community?

And how is that different from a government?

It is free agreement, gov'ts are coercion.

Almost anybody can be productive during war, especially when your sample size is only a couple years. I'm talking about sustainable production over a period of several decades at minimum, during peacetime.

I have shown you the RNLI, but things like that obviously aren't good enough for you.

No, you can provide real, worthwhile education without communism. Europe, Canada, Japan, Australia, and New Zealand all do it.

They provide you as ready meat for the capitalist system, nothing more.

 

[Kandahar]

No it is communism as the Peter Kropotkin,who knows a little bit more about communism than you, said.
This is the kind of thing anarcho-communism is based on.
Now you can have your right-wing definitions but these are irrelevant to actual communists.

What makes this organization "communist" as opposed to "charity"?

Most can be done by machines.

And there are lots of crappy jobs that can't. Why would anyone choose to "develop their creative potential" in those jobs if they had no incentive to do so?

No it needs the state to deprive most of their access to the means of production and maintain this situation, this is the only way people will work for capitalists.

Nonsense. I consider myself mainly a capitalist, and I have no desire to deprive anyone of access to means of production. They should have the right to start any business they want to, within the bounds of the rights of others.

Why would you do that when you don't have to worry about the future and live in peace and solidarity with your community?

Because I can?

It is free agreement, gov'ts are coercion.

So if I want to build my home on your commune free of charge, but don't wish to provide anything for the commune...that would be OK?

I have shown you the RNLI, but things like that obviously aren't good enough for you.

I don't understand what this organization has to do with anything. It sounds like a pretty standard charity to me. And it's certainly not a society that has an economy of its own.

They provide you as ready meat for the capitalist system, nothing more.

You can get an education in any field you want to, whether there's a job market for it or not.