Maybe don't call it "Communism"

[Matias]

@Matias. I didn't plan on commenting about this idea any more than I already have on the other thread, but you have misquoted me and I wanted to point it out. My quote was "Communism is equality enforced at the barrel of a gun". It sounds good on paper, until the people realize just how far those at the top are willing to take it. I really don't see why anyone should have to explain why a political philosophy that killed tens of millions of people in the 20th century is less than ideal. And yes, that was definitely "real" Communism.

Any system that requires total state control over everything to function will always be co-opted by malevolent actors under the guise of helping the poor working man. We now have how many generations of people who were trained in government schools, who look to the government to step in and solve all their problems. Government cannot and will not solve our problems. This is the kind of thinking that got us here, to this crazy world we all live in, everybody obsessed with politics when they don't even know their own neighbours.

To your original question, "is any system capable of fairly governing large numbers of humans", yes, it is that system which uses the least amount of force. It involves maximum individual responsibility and freedom. It is called Liberty. And we will never see anything even close to it in our lifetimes.

Here's a good short read if you're interested :

Let Us Now Try Liberty - Educated Climber.com

This is my abridgement of the classic libertarian text “The Law” by Frederic Bastiat, written 1850. This book helped tremendously to clarify my thinking regarding the concept of legal plunder, the proper role of government, and personal responsibility. But the original text is bloated. It...

www.educatedclimber.com

Also, I finally(!!) figured out how to block that absolutely stupid F@*ckface thread from my Treebuzz experience a few days ago and was looking forward to a nice long break from this political banter, but now you pull me back in.............

So, I read the whole abridgement carefully, and I must ask:

A- From what do you derive the fundamental right of property ownership? Where does it begin?

B- where does your air end, and mine begin? Where is the border between your water and mine?

C- What funds your ideal government that only intervenes when it determines there's been an injustice.

D- Do we not require agreement about what constitutes injustice before such injustices can be rectified?

 

[Matias]

This was duplicate text. Sorry for the blank.

 

[Muggs]

So, I read the whole abridgement carefully, and I must ask:

A- From what do you derive the fundamental right of property ownership? Where does it begin?

B- where does your air end, and mine begin? Where is the border between your water and mine?

C- What funds your ideal government that only intervenes when it determines there's been an injustice.

D- Do we not require agreement about what constitutes injustice before such injustices can be rectified?

First of all, I'm a recovering libertarian, which is to say that while I agree with a lot of the ideology, I recognize that it's completely utopian and could never happen. Libertarianism, like many things, could work if people were fundamentally intelligent, responsible, and industrious. Similar to communism, it looks good on paper.

In regards to the questions you asked:
A - I think property ownership is just a basic human concept. Even communists believe in private property. I'm not sure how far to the left you'd have to be to think that you should share a toothbrush with your neighbor because it's not actually yours. Pretty far I'm guessing. Where communists disagree regarding property is when it comes to capital: which is anything involved in the production or distribution of goods and services.

B - I don't know how ownership applies to air or water. I think more in terms of not harming other users of shared resources: not polluting downstream users, etc.

C - My ideal government doesn't exist, but if a minimal government of some kind were to need funding, I suppose they would steal it from productive people using various means, like all other governments do.

D - I don't believe that large groups of people throughout history have ever agreed on what constitutes injustice.

 

[Matias]

First of all, I'm a recovering libertarian, which is to say that while I agree with a lot of the ideology, I recognize that it's completely utopian and could never happen. Libertarianism, like many things, could work if people were fundamentally intelligent, responsible, and industrious. Similar to communism, it looks good on paper.

In regards to the questions you asked:
A - I think property ownership is just a basic human concept. Even communists believe in private property. I'm not sure how far to the left you'd have to be to think that you should share a toothbrush with your neighbor because it's not actually yours. Pretty far I'm guessing. Where communists disagree regarding property is when it comes to capital: which is anything involved in the production or distribution of goods and services.

B - I don't know how ownership applies to air or water. I think more in terms of not harming other users of shared resources: not polluting downstream users, etc.

C - My ideal government doesn't exist, but if a minimal government of some kind were to need funding, I suppose they would steal it from productive people using various means, like all other governments do.

D - I don't believe that large groups of people throughout history have ever agreed on what constitutes injustice.

D- Agreed.

C- It sounds like we're in agreement in the sense that even in anyone's perceived best case scenario, we're going to have to tolerate at least some amount of perceived injustice to achieve a more functional result.

B- I know that you do care about not shitting upstream from the town well, but the point I was getting at was regarding the shared nature of resources. If some resources are clearly shared, where do you draw the line? And connecting to A-
And, regarding injustices
All ownership is ultimately derived from theft. This is where all systems break down. The utopia I really like the most, assuming an industrious, intelligent, and responsible populace, is anarchy. Why would such an ideal group of people even need a government?

The challenge that seems to need to be dealt with when considering a large scale society in theory, is that due to the shared nature of certain resources, we clearly do need some regulatory system to curb the harmful behaviors of some to protect the common resources of air and water, fundamental to life as they are. That ultimately leads to needing some forms of what some will perceive as an oppressive government.

Because there are many unintelligent and under educated people, and otherwise gullible people, there are people who are easily taken advantage, and cheated out of everything they have. I think they deserve help, even if their family sucks and doesn't want to deal with them. Or do we force them to take care of their family? That seems like another slippery slope.

I value your opinions quite a lot, as I was stoked to learn during the lock downs, how many similar life choices we had made, though obviously you've had more time to roll out the plan than I have. I very much understand feeling like you are past wanting to discuss this minutia again, and I appreciate the time you have spent thinking about it. Regardless of our ideological differences, we seem to have a fair bit of agreement about a lot of the broad strokes of moving forward in a way that keeps in mind the reality of life as it is and looks towards the future, with all the uncertainty ahead.

 

[Rodger_Dodger]

Are there any political systems in which everyone is actually treated equally? In outcome, not in doctrine, creed or manifesto, but in practice.

Might be wrong, but I don’t recall any. From one side of the political extreme to the other. There always seem to be the select few who occupy the upper echelons in any system and live well above the station of the majority. About the only difference I see in any of these systems is the percentage of those who occupy the majority.

Also; Politically speaking I lean libertarian. And I’m not a fan of removing any land, resource or possession from anyone forcefully. I also realize, ironically, that I have the liberty to express that because the political system I was born into does not share my beliefs. As I said, politically speaking. Religiously speaking I believe it’s wrong, amoral, no different than theft.

 

[RyanCafferky]

When reading the first post what my mind was drawn to was looking at Wikipedia lists of various things. Tax rates by country, income disparity by country, military spending by country, happiness rating by country, infant mortality rate by country. Conservatives in this country would rail against countries that rank in positive ways on these lists as socialist but look at the results.

Communism as was done in Russia and the bloc of countries in their orbit was a failure. But one thing I’ve always wondered is if similar ideas were tried without being in a Cold War and space race that bleeds a country dry could something like that have worked better. We will never know because any country that ever starts down the road towards more socialist ideals consistently has or has had a coup supported by the CIA.

 

[treegongfu]

Communism as was done in Russia and the bloc of countries in their orbit was a failure.

It wasn't just a failure, it was ideologicaly and deliberately genocidal and resulted in widespread cannibalism.

Same in China.

In Campodia they marched them into the jungle and murdered all the educated to create year zero.

Vietnam and Cuba seem to be an exception but lots of secret police.

 

[Serf Life]

When reading the first post what my mind was drawn to was looking at Wikipedia lists of various things. Tax rates by country, income disparity by country, military spending by country, happiness rating by country, infant mortality rate by country. Conservatives in this country would rail against countries that rank in positive ways on these lists as socialist but look at the results.

Ditto, but I still don’t understand how these points fall on deaf ears?

I rub shoulders with all sorts and have non confrontational conversations about issues with healthcare/wealth/environment/maternal care etc without talking about political parties or figure heads, and we commiserate on the issues 100% of the time across unspoken party lines. Take out the labels and triggering phrases (universal healthcare, social anything, death tax etc) and we’re in agreement yet not at the ballot box.

 

[Matias]

Are there any political systems in which everyone is actually treated equally? In outcome, not in doctrine, creed or manifesto, but in practice.

Might be wrong, but I don’t recall any. From one side of the political extreme to the other. There always seem to be the select few who occupy the upper echelons in any system and live well above the station of the majority. About the only difference I see in any of these systems is the percentage of those who occupy the majority.

Also; Politically speaking I lean libertarian. And I’m not a fan of removing any land, resource or possession from anyone forcefully. I also realize, ironically, that I have the liberty to express that because the political system I was born into does not share my beliefs. As I said, politically speaking. Religiously speaking I believe it’s wrong, amoral, no different than theft.

While I agree that there's inherent theft in any system, it's all born of the original theft. Every single one of our ancestors stole something from someone at some point. Everyone's ancestors took land from whomever or whatever was there before. Hence, the planet is our collective inheritance that we share with every other living being. And we all share an equal responsibility to it and each other. That is a fact as I see it and all that changes is how much each individual finds a way to honor that truth. Most folks seem OK with abandoning the majority of their family with minimal consideration for our shared history. It's especially deplorable that anyone who calls themselves a Christian, and believes in Adam and Eve, would not consider everyone alive to be their family and treat them as such.

 

[RyanCafferky]

It wasn't just a failure, it was ideologicaly and deliberately genocidal and resulted in widespread cannibalism.

Same in China.

In Campodia they marched them into the jungle and murdered all the educated to create year zero.

Vietnam and Cuba seem to be an exception but lots of secret police.

Cambodia, Vietnam, and Cuba? Can anyone think of any outside influences that led to anything bad happening in those places?

 

[treegongfu]

Vietnam and Cuba faced the greatest US interference and they were the least murderous.

 

[Matias]

It wasn't just a failure, it was ideologicaly and deliberately genocidal and resulted in widespread cannibalism.

Same in China.

In Campodia they marched them into the jungle and murdered all the educated to create year zero.

Vietnam and Cuba seem to be an exception but lots of secret police.

Sorry, where does Marx preach genocide. I'd like to read that excerpt.

 

[Matias]

Vietnam and Cuba faced the greatest US interference and they were the least murderous.

Yea, it's almost like communism and murder-frenzy are separate concepts.

 

[Muggs]

I posted about this book on Instagram in April of last year and was instantly attacked and ridiculed by activist accounts that seemingly came out of nowhere. In 7 years of posting on there I have never seen a reaction that vehement. It was truly bizarre. Anyway, this is a history book about the horrors of Communism in the 20th century, written by a self-described anarchist. It really opened my eyes.

 

[treegongfu]

Almost, like they are separate.

Now they are engaging in critical studies and struggle sessions along race and gender lines as opposed to class lines. If it continues it will lead to more death and destruction. But will never lead to a communist utopia.

 

[treegongfu]

Here is Marx fir you,

“there is only one way in which the murderous death agonies of the old society and the bloody birth throes of the new society can be shortened, simplified and concentrated, and that way is revolutionary terror.”

 

[Matias]

Here is Marx fir you,

“there is only one way in which the murderous death agonies of the old society and the bloody birth throes of the new society can be shortened, simplified and concentrated, and that way is revolutionary terror.”

Like, the terror that the ruling class feel when unions strike? That quote reads to me like someone advocating against "the murderous death agonies of the old society". Can you explain it like I'm five?

 

[Rodger_Dodger]

While I agree that there's inherent theft in any system, it's all born of the original theft. Every single one of our ancestors stole something from someone at some point. Everyone's ancestors took land from whomever or whatever was there before. Hence, the planet is our collective inheritance that we share with every other living being. And we all share an equal responsibility to it and each other. That is a fact as I see it and all that changes is how much each individual finds a way to honor that truth. Most folks seem OK with abandoning the majority of their family with minimal consideration for our shared history. It's especially deplorable that anyone who calls themselves a Christian, and believes in Adam and Eve, would not consider everyone alive to be their family and treat them as such.

You’ll get no disagreement from me there. I will say however, regarding the last sentence, that anyone who believes or behaves that way has a fundamental misunderstanding of what it means to be truly Christian. Most who say they are, are not, and I say that, unfortunately, as a Christian. To “love thy neighbor as thyself” is a fundamental tenet of Christianity. Also in 1 John 4:20 it says that anyone who professes to love God while hating his brother is a liar, and verse 21 finishes by saying it’s a commandment that “he who loveth God love his brother also“.

What about my first 2 paragraphs? It seems to to be an, almost, universal truth that a discrepancy arises between what those “above” the common man say they believe and what they do in practice. It’s there in Communism, its there in (crony) Capitalism, as well as every political system in between. The few control and exploit the many. I don’t want to control or exploit anyone, and I don’t want to be controlled or exploited by anyone. Marx or Lenin may have said they cared about “the people”, they might not have preached misery, death and destruction, but that is what those systems brought about. The current leadership in Washington, both parties, say they care about “the people”, but their policy decisions certainly don’t reflect that, unless it’s an aside to something they want that will enrich themselves or keep them in power. It‘s not about what they say, it’s about what they do.

Like Serf Life, I have many friends and acquaintances from differing political and religious beliefs, but many of those people, wherever they may fall on the political spectrum, have an inclination or wish to force or hoist those beliefs on others. I will never fully trust a person like that, not those now in power nor wish the ones aren’t to attain it. To me, there is something inherently vile in controlling others.

Normally I steer well clear of political or religious discussions online, but it seemed to me, judging by your posts, that you were sincere in your wish to discuss the topic and welcomed debate. I usually get on well with folks like that in real life, regardless if we have similar beliefs or not.

 

[treegongfu]

Here is a book that documents it for you:

Amazon.com

 

[bobs yeruncle]

Are there any political systems in which everyone is actually treated equally? In outcome, not in doctrine, creed or manifesto, but in practice.

putting 'equality in outcome' in practice would have to be intimately connected to the material conditions of the society in question and what that society has decided 'equality in outcome' means. is it opportunity, the right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness? is it fundamental rights to housing, food, medicine? what would it look like in 500 bc athens?19th century france? 1st century rome? 21st century america? each of those societies has very different material conditions, culture and historical position that would inform their answer to those questions. what does equality of outcome look like for an able bodied person vs someone who is mentally disabled? for the scion of a rich family vs a poor family? a political system has to exist in reality to answer those questions, and they have to have some ideal to put into practice to do so, whether it be republicanism, libertarian minarchy, marxism-leninism, christian anarchism, or any other ideology