Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
History teaches us that capitalism is better than any known alternative, and that socialism was, is, and always will be a miserable failure. That revolutionary Catalonia consisted of a tiny piece of a tiny country in a civil war, and it ended up failing. Have you ever asked yourself why, this "workers paradise" you're fantasizing about has never been tried again?
In Spain they collectivized farming. Is that your plan too? Collectivization worked so well in the Soviet Union that only about ten million people starved to death.
And Marxism was such a great success in China that they changed over to a capitalist system. Except for the political system which is still brutally and repressively Marxist.
It’s interesting to see how the Austrian school of economics has taken over anarchism (for some).
What I continue to find interesting, (albeit in a baffling sortof way), is the incompetent & impotent black/white thinking. It must be absolutely! one way or the other. C'mon already, humanity is so much more than that, look around you, this is verifiable.
Long story short; the absolutist black/white thinking style is not only ridiculous, it's totalitarian.
Additionally, haven't we learned enough about where all this absolutist black/white thinking inevitably leads? George Orwell wrote critically about this aspect in his essays, & creatively addressed the same in his novels. From one of his essays, WHY I WRITE (1946):
Quote:
...The Spanish war and other events in 1936-37 turned the scale and thereafter I knew where I stood. Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, AGAINST totalitarianism and FOR democratic socialism, as I understand it. It seems to me nonsense, in a period like our own, to think that one can avoid writing of such subjects. Everyone writes of them in one guise or another. It is simply a question of which side one takes and what approach one follows. And the more one is conscious of one's political bias, the more chance one has of acting politically without sacrificing one's aesthetic and intellectual integrity. ...
Great link. Kind of proves my point about anarchism as the basis for Marxism and the freedom of opportunity it offers.
Mr. Marx was up against what every person has experienced at one time/place or another. We come & go & are here for such a relatively short period of time. I usually think of him simply as a pragmatic labor leader. History, & the actors that 'people' it, was 'ripe' for the original, creative, & borne & then nurtured by the creative & critical thoughtviews he brought to fruition.
And Marxism was such a great success in China that they changed over to a capitalist system. Except for the political system which is still brutally and repressively Marxist.
What I continue to find interesting, (albeit in a baffling sortof way), is the incompetent & impotent black/white thinking. It must be absolutely! one way or the other. C'mon already, humanity is so much more than that, look around you, this is verifiable.
Long story short; the absolutist black/white thinking style is not only ridiculous, it's totalitarian.
Additionally, haven't we learned enough about where all this absolutist black/white thinking inevitably leads? George Orwell wrote critically about this aspect in his essays, & creatively addressed the same in his novels. From one of his essays, WHY I WRITE (1946):
Mr. Marx was up against what every person has experienced at one time/place or another. We come & go & are here for such a relatively short period of time. I usually think of him simply as a pragmatic labor leader. History, & the actors that 'people' it, was 'ripe' for the original, creative, & borne & then nurtured by the creative & critical thoughtviews he brought to fruition.
I'm not even sure he meant logical consistency, but more that you should be open-minded. I'd hope so, because logical consistency is the BASELINE for rational thinking. If you don't care about contradicting yourself, you can barely consider it thought at all. It's just incoherent, subjective feelings.
Oh great, the SPLC...
We could get into the defooing thing, but it seems like a giant distraction to me. Actually, when I mentioned him I deleted it right away, expecting the usual character assassination tactics, then said screw it and retyped it...so I guess I brought it on myself. Quick answer? I believe the argument is that if someone advocates force against you to get their way, even after you discuss it with them many times, you should consider leaving that relationship. I don't even know if I agree with that or not.
Either way, you judge people's ideas on their validity, not on other ideas they have, or what you think of them as a person. I'd listen to him for the peaceful parenting stuff alone.
Maybe you should 'practice what you preach' when it comes to the SPLC.
Nothing ironic about it. Obviously people will disagree on things, and there's always ongoing discussion and problem solving.
Our perspective is that you can have whatever Marxist collective arrangement you want, as long as it's not forced on others. If you try to impose it on people, they have the right to defend themselves and their property against you.
But who gives these people right of property to things that are not in their usage.
Say you live in MD (own a house there) but also ‘own’ a house in Arizona (that you rarely visit). If said community in Arizona has individuals who need shelter and the house is vacant, what right do you have to stop them? Right now the state defends these ‘ownership’ claims, without the state, where do these rights come from?
Attempted once, from THE CONSTITUTION OF THE CONFEDERATE STATES OF AMERICA
What was changed? And why?:
Quote:
(4) No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed.
(1) The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States; and shall have the right of transit and sojourn in any State of this Confederacy, with their slaves and other property; and the right of property in said slaves shall not be thereby impaired.
Your pragmatism is at gunpoint (meaning it's not even pragmatism)
Ours isn't.
That's what I was trying to convey.
What the heck are you selling now?
Sheeesh. Like a clone of this guy:
Quote:
“...the Germans were in danger of being taken over by what they perceived as Jewish-led Communism. And Jewish-led Communism had wiped out tens of millions of white Christians in Russia and they were afraid of the same thing. And there was this wild overreaction and all this kind of stuff.”
—Stefan Molyneux describes the Holocaust in YouTube video, Migratory Patterns of Predatory Immigrants, March 20, 2016
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
