Why won't the nightmare dream of communism die?

  • Thread starter Thread starter JimG
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
There is no government without force - government is fundamentally the recognition that some form of coercion must be used to ensure a just society. In fact, one of the definitional principles of whether a government is actually functioning is whether it can maintain the monopoly of force. (Note that this isn’t a moral evaluation of whether it’s using that force properly, it’s just a test of whether it actually a government.)

At it’s most basic form, it’s what prevents an armed bandit from making off with your stuff, or a thief from sneaking off with your goods, by using force against them if they do. On a slightly less basic level, it also serves to enforce contract - if you promise to pay me if I do work for you, and I do that work, and you don’t pay, the government comes and takes your stuff and gives it to me as my wages.

Now, the question is how far that may be legitimately extended. It has been fairly commonly held that the government may legitimately provide for the care of those in need. However, since it is a government and not a business, it has no way to do that but to impose upon others. It is worth remembering that in many eras the Church performed this duty with the backing of the local government - that is, that the tithe for both the support of the church and the care of the poor was enforced. Ancient Israel did the same, that the tithe for the care of the poor was mandated for all. Other laws, such as the laws about gleaning, were also church and state enforced for the benefit of the poor.
 
Government force is also about putting Jews in ovens and killing the handicapped in the name of the state ideology/religion.

Unbridled government is a problem that we have not solved yet. Checks that we put on government simply become part of the governing clique. In past centuries the Christian religion was a separate check on morals of the governing. To be sure, there were often times when the church was too close to government but now the Progressive Left want Christianity sidelined while they mandate their own enlightened religion of political correctness and victim hierarchy funded by other people’s money.

The church is in a much weaker position today than in the past because in too many places it’s focus is on it’s relationship to government and its subservience to this new religion. The Progressive Leftist government has created (is creating) it’s own religion over the last century or more and there is a temptation in the church to see this as somehow a derivation of Christian charity and to show deference to it.

I believe this is very wrong.

I take your point about the church working with the government and of course we should have government to some extent. But the level of taxation has grown astronomically from centuries past and it is now a tool in the hands of big state utopians where the state has become God or rather those advocating big government see their philosophy as God and notions of partisan ‘equality’ give them the right to take others wealth to any degree if it might achieve their end goal utopia.

Again I believe such thinking is very wrong but those that hold it mistake such evil for goodness.
 
Last edited:
abucs said:
Unbridled government is a problem that we have not solved yet.
Click to expand...
I think the fundamental question here is - who is it least dangerous to leave unbridled? Many of us have the concern that unbridled corporate greed can create the exact same abuses, simply because people must accede if they wish to eat. It can be profitable for a corporation to pay people less than what it costs to live off of, if there are not enough jobs that do pay the costs, for example - something that has happened in history. In extremes, corporations can turn themselves into mini governments.

I do think that “equality” is not the right term - although some of that is because it’s a very equivocal term in many ways. For example, one component of civil rights laws is that a person shouldn’t be assumed less competent, or less trustworthy, or something, because of their race or sex. In that sense, we want equality where two people of the same qualifications are judged the same.

In a more economic sense, I think what we really want to strive for is where the majority of people are capable of having a family and supporting said family on their own labor, while having enough extra to save for both expected and unexpected future expenses. That some people earn more than that is ok, as long as they don’t use their power to abuse others.
 
Yes but as people say Coca Cola does not have an army and people can choose not to buy their product.

Looking at history the evil of big government is evident but not to any comparable extent the evil of corporations.

Corporates need markets. The very essence of their success is that they create and swap wealth with others and that others value their products. This is not there for government. We do have democracy but when government is so big a political elite is created that remains in power no matter who wins.

In times of crisis governments tend to suspend elections but just in the normal running of a western democracy the enlarged state tends to rule absent of electoral backing - civil servants, judges, education systems etc.
 
Last edited:
abucs said:
Karl Marx never worked a day in his life, sponged off his family and in-laws, didn’t pay his bills and lived the latter half of his life off the money of Engels business ventures.

He got his maid pregnant, didn’t recognise her child, paid her absolutely zero money for all the work she did and was constantly in debt even though he was taking money off others constantly.
Click to expand...
ROFL, at least he walked his talk!
 
abucs said:
Yes but as people say Coca Cola does not have an army and people can choose not to buy their product.

Looking at history the evil of big government is evident but not to any comparable extent the evil of corporations.

Corporates need markets. The very essence of their success is that they swap wealth with others and that others value their products. This is not there for government. We do have democracy but when government is so big a political elite is created that remains in power no matter who wins.

In times of crisis governments tend to suspend elections but just in the normal running of a western democracy the enlarged state tends to rule absent of electoral backing - civil servants, judges, education systems etc.
Click to expand...
People selecting their Govt is visible in legal and illegal migration patterns. It explains the mass migration of illegals to Europe and North America.
 
The ACA was not only badly implemented, it was none of the business of the federal government to start with. If healthcare should be socialized, it should be done on a state or local level. It’s not a power of the federal government allowed under the Constitution.
 
abucs said:
Yes but as people say Coca Cola does not have an army and people can choose not to buy their product.
Click to expand...
It’s not the concern about the purchaser but of the employee. If for a certain class of people, you can’t find a job that pays you a living wage, you’re not going to be able to earn a living wage. If earning a wage means accepting dangerous working conditions where you can be injured with no compensation, then you have to take that because your other option is no wage at all.

Where the purchaser is concerned, it’s more the question of the price of basic necessities. Female sanitary products are a common example - they’re a major expense to many at the very bottom of the income scale, but there isn’t enough push to lower the prices because it would cut into profits.
 
I think there is a type of thinking which is unhealthy in that it expects others to do things for ones self and believes ones own endevours are not valuable. This kind of thinking actually is the opposite of what is needed to create wealth for society.

People need to understand how to participate in the creating of wealth and the power they have in influencing work practices. They can start businesses and organise themselves to learn skills. They can work in communities and there is always value that can be added to communities that others desire.

Believing that corporates would have the whips out if not for government is unrealistic, counter productive to business and comes from a place of seeing the other as villainous.

Again this is a lack of confidence in shared culture and a placing of faith in government fiat which is part of the new religion.

I live most of my year in poor rural Philippines. We have government here, we don’t have so much business. The second one is much more important for helping the poor. Government can do nothing with out business except rule over people.

Some businesses come here and they do not pay very much wages but it is better than not having them here. The reality of things improving will not be because of government law which will chase business away. It will be in encouraging more business so that the Philippino’s can have their choice of which company to create wealth in which will drive wages up and also allow local Philippino’s to go into business themselves to aid existing businesses.
 
Last edited:
Believing that corporates would have the whips out if not for government is unrealistic, counter productive to business and comes from a place of seeing the other as villainous.
Click to expand...
Actually, for a lot of us it comes from a combination of actually working in low-wage jobs and a good study of history. Most retail I’ve dealt with quite clearly will conform to the minimum standard someone forces them to conform to and nothing else. And most of us were there because we couldn’t get another job, at least not without experience (which, of course had to be subsidized by either family or the government).

And most of the things I’m citing here are actual things that happened either historically or currently in less regulated states. For example, dangerous conditions in third-world factories creating things for first-world consumers is a very common issue.
 
A large portion of the problem in the United States is so much investment in perishable goods. No resale value whatsoever on: Drugs, supermarket prices, fast food, gasoline (to name a few), then the auto and tech markets are depreciation central. The US market is a fail, next is cheap items that nobody wants, from cheap cabinetry to cheap rugs, floor to ceiling with mass produced trash which never raises in value. What is purchased with temporary jobs is just as temporary, then you die broke. That is how the low and middle class are defined.

Low class: Renting trash lined with trash burning money to turn food to poop, and gas to pollution as car and tech age to worthlessness.

Middle class: House version
 
Last edited:
I think it is a common issue in poorer countries but the business is a benefit to those countries, I think there are stages of production similar to how western countries developed.

So if you take the industry of coal mining, men had to walk miles underground with picks and shovels to labour all day in unhealthy environments that took them to an early grave. Today we have magnificent machinery to dig, transport, explore and assess different geological conditions.

This machinery makes a worker very much more safe and productive. More produce, more wealth, more wages, better working conditions. I think this machinery was only possible through a certain level of business activity where break throughs in one industry can be applied to others and the scale of business makes such research and production feasible.

If you take the Korean shipyard a few kilometres from where I live, welders get paid about 8000 - 15000 pesos a month which I think is about US $200 - US $300. But workers are keen to get those jobs. There are literally thousands of people living in the hillsides in little more than tents or small concrete constructions. They have the opportunity to earn money, live off subsistence agriculture and perhaps take their skills overseas for higher wages.

If the Korean place was forced to up wages they would close. I think a lot of the problems with lower wages in the west are due to outsourcing and immigration. Nationalism and religion should work to look after our own first (alla Trump’s call) although in doing so we would not be helping many poor people around the world as we currently are.

The thing is, gradually as more business comes to this part of the Philippines and skills increase and people have disposal income this encourages more people to be actively involved in the economy which helps with the economy of scales. I think this is needed to progress to western levels of production and increased production means increased wages.

The problems for industries like retail is that they are in competition with countries overseas which have not developed and are happy to have a level of wages that westerners cannot live on.

Government laws in places like the Philippines which forces wages higher will mean business will simply leave. Government laws in places like the west means that businesses cannot compete and will become bankrupt.

With all the talk by Progressives for looking after the poor what they are really interested in is a global agenda run by government which leads to sections of people in the west being worse off.

It is a difficult balancing act but a cultural in-group preference / discrimination is something that I support as long as it is done intelligently.
 
How many people died in the Irish potato famine in the 19th century? No communism.

How many suffered slavery? No communism.

How many died in WW1? No communism.

How many died in WW2 and the Holocaust? No communism,

How many starve to death or die of preventable illnesses now? No communism.
 
Last edited:
TheButler said:
How many people died in the Irish potato famine in the 19th century? No communism.

How many suffered slavery? No communism.

How many died in WW1? No communism.

How many died in WW2 and the Holocaust? No communism,

How many starve to death or die of preventable illnesses now? No communism.
Click to expand...
Regarding number 1 there was no communist state in Ireland in the 1840’s although the English government saw Irish workers as being for the benefit of itself and oversaw the movement of large quantities of food from Ireland to Britain while mass Irish starvation was occurring. Not attributable to communism but definitely an example of unbridled government force.

Regarding number 2 : communism and slavery - you might be interested in the Gulag Archipelago which details communist government enslavement of any citizen seen as a possible threat to the governing ideology.

Part 1 of 7.


Regarding number 3 : there was no Communist state at the start of the 1st world war at the time although the Bolshevik uprising happened at the end of the first world war and continued on in civil war afterwards with many deaths. (in the millions).


Regarding number 4 : Soviet atrocities during the second world war



Regarding number 5 : North Korea which is perhaps the most communist country in the world today. There is also Venezuela who very strongly moved that way in the very recent past.
 
Last edited:
Vonsalza said:
Again, most Americans are completely on board with it. I think even most Catholics are.
Click to expand...
Most people who are socialists or communists in America seem to think it means they get more and don’t have to sacrifice anything.
 
TheButler said:
How many people died in the Irish potato famine in the 19th century? No communism.

How many suffered slavery? No communism.

How many died in WW1? No communism.

How many died in WW2 and the Holocaust? No communism,
Click to expand...
All of these were the result of big government, which communism is. See the forest through the trees, please.
TheButler said:
How many starve to death or die of preventable illnesses now? No communism.
Click to expand...
People in the Ukraine were cannibalizing under the communist USSR. People in Venezuela are killing and eat zoo animals and pets because of socialism.
 
DarkLight said:
Actually, for a lot of us it comes from a combination of actually working in low-wage jobs and a good study of history.
Click to expand...
If you do this in America, it’s mostly your choice.
DarkLight said:
Most retail I’ve dealt with quite clearly will conform to the minimum standard someone forces them to conform to and nothing else.
Click to expand...
Retail was a decent field to be in before the government got involved.
 
Hold your horses.

Just because a person thinks there should be a moderate welfare state doesn’t mean they are a socialist or a communist.

It’s actually part of the plank of the rather Catholic aligning Solidarity Party.
 
Which country is considering switching to communism? I don’t see communism on the rise.
 
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
Communism has spread throughout the world like a metastasized cancer. It’s everywhere yet it’s only visible in several countries. The ideology has definitely poisoned the world.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top