Communism is a pre-industrial state of human society. Propoganda is used to call totalitarianism, communism.
Socialism is the attempt to harmonize communism with post-industrialism. Socialism is called Unilateralism for propogandic purposes.
There are still living examples of pre-industrial communist tribes on earth to this day who cannot recall the last murder or suicide through their heritage of stories. Most communist societies can be found in very obscure locations; islands out at sea or remote oasis’ out in a thick expanse like Africa or Australia or Asia or South America. (Think ‘commune’)
Western communist societies were destroyed when the America’s were settled. They were considered sinners of God (they didn’t understand that nudity was pornography - they hadn’t abstracted it as a resource) as they were naked all the time. They were considered sub-human because they didn’t have temples or religions, because they were buried with their creations, and didn’t abstract property as a commodity; nor personal possession. These societies are almost all exclusively noted as not having had much selective pressure throughout history; as they were too remote or undiscovered from nations who built vast technologies from constant selective pressure.
These societies are still being researched by cultural anthropologists to this day; they still exist.
It’s also worth noting that several of these societies have not abstracted time either. It sounds absurd, but they literally cannot comprehend time. Instead, they have photographic memories for locations. It was “By the yellow bush with the lady beetle” etc…
Communism is considered dangerous to the heads of Aristoctricies, Plutocracies, Monarchies, or any other form of totalitarian government. It is only considered a dangerous idea for the generation of heads which are enjoying these luxuries.
These individuals are not concerned with a larger picture; simply that an idea could interfere with a state where complaining does not seem rational to them.
Enter communism: The societies that were cannablized to create this structure.
Understanding that Totalitarian law regimes with castes were created by the cannibalism of communism; and the slavery of its members, is a bit of a shaky philosophy to put into Acadamia - to these individuals.
This is where counter-intelligence is employed; to proactively associate communism with an idea completely unassociated with it; that is determined: bad. At this point the idea of communism is wiped from the cirriculum; also creating a vast noise to signal ratio to discern this simple truth from other historical documents.
The most highly blasted works of ‘communist philosophy’; are effectively works employed to misdefine communism; and render the idea itself into silence.
There is no serious philosopher who would consider it possible to make a post-industrial society into a communist society. They would call you a lunatic; you can’t unabstract abstractions that way - it violates the principles philosophers have come to know.
You will NEVER find a real bona-fide philosopher arguing for change to communism. It will never happen. Communism is considered a relic in light of Law and post-industrialism. It is considered a clock which can not be wound back no matter how hard we tried or wanted to try. One might even ask “why bother?”
The progressive philosophy being articulated is called: Socialism.
Socialism is the attempt to bring communist statistics to a post-industrial age; by attempting to create transparent standards within the code of law that are based upon natural principles.
This very idea is preposterous to individuals who are thriving from totalitarian code embedded into the law.
I want to point out that all corruption of weatern logic can be traced to an axiom found in Plato’s Republic:
“Slavery is necessary for any society of law.”
Plato is wrong. I will argue that the only reason Plato is considered ‘so popular’ to this day is because of this statement.
You will find that the entire lineage of the most popular western philosophers do not divert from this basic premise of caste organization and the necessity of slavery; or property ownership of another human being against their will to even be alive or live.
It validates, applauds and martyrs the poor, poor human being who must use slaves to build a nation and their personal wealth.
It honors those who are unfortunate enough to have been born slaves; but that they will be rescued from those who were against their will born to lead and lavish in all the production of the slaves. Their luxury is to be celebrated by the slaves; as evidence that the slaves matter.
“How could one live in so much glory without your work? You have raised the glory of man himself and see in me the embodyment of the wealth that you seek. Were it not for me, and my forsaken duty to be happy, none of us would ever taste the glory which beholds us all. Be thankful and work harder and sacrifice more; and know that I suffer greatly in my bliss - yet know that we are all sharing in this together; and for this I am indebted to you. The pain of my crackling whip against your flesh, the chains to which you are bound; this is the human condition, that your kind exist to uplift us all.”
The God concept itself is been used repetetively by these same philosophers to brush over law that demands transparency and accountability. You will always be able to note that the ‘Big names’ have this concept imbedded into their works.
I’m really started to get sick of Justhink. The language you are writing in is not English. It resembles English, and yet, is not. I stopped reading when I hit “thick expanse”. Why did you feel the need to respond to yourself three times?
I guess I didn’t make my point clear. I admit that I was wrong in my style of posting: I was over the top. I should have had more tact in making my posts. As ** Guinastasia** pointed out in this thread I was shrill and angry in my posts. I even stated that I was angry about other things and let that anger bleed into my posts.
I apologized for that. Go read my post again. I never said that JT was right and I was wrong. I said I should have made better, more respectfull posts.
How right you are! I’ve determined that the above posts by said poster were produced with the help of one of those wonky translation websites. Said poster started out with English, then translated into French, then into Swedish, then into Javanese, then into Hopi (in which there is no concept of time, by the way), and finally back into English.
Allegory of the Cave may have come from Socrates. Sometimes I wonder if Plato is as real as we’re led to believe. “Plato” may well have been a totalitarian answer to other opposing ideas of the time.
It seems like nobody is willing to take the time out from their rants against Rand to actually read anything she wrote. Almost their entire output is based on straw man arguments, with the occasional ad hominem thrown in.
Personally, I think concern with one’s own interests is a virtue. It is a good thing for people to try to live happy, healthy lives. It is a good thing for people to do things that they enjoy and which are in their self interest. It is a bad thing for people to sacrifice themselves for the sake of sacrifice, in a fog of confusion that sacrificing yourself is always a virtue.
Very astute, Gex. Perhaps next you can describe how a dictionary is descriptive rather than prescriptive.
If you actually read the book you’d see that Rand is very clear about how she’s defining the term. Many people use old terms in new ways. It’s how the language evolves.
:rolleyes:
I wonder if Rand used that title to see how many people’s knees she could cause to jerk.
I’ve read some Rand (VoS, The Fountainhead, Anthem, and Atlas Shrugged) and always thought that sort of ‘bad thing to sacrifice for the sake of sacrifice’ was wrong.
If it’s right for people to do what they perceive as being in their own self-interest what about those folks who perceive sacrifice (of any sort) as being in their own self-interest? If one thinks it’s a worthwhile investment of time, energy and capital to perform charity work for the homeless or baby seals or what-have-you what position does anyone have saying that’s NOT in the performers self-interest. Unless I’m mistaken the only person who can define one’s own self interest in the person involved.
Right, but that’s no fallacy. You’ll recall that, in Atlas Shrugged, Dagny helped out an old man who was down on his luck. And as Rand explained in VOS, selfishness does not preclude acts of charity, but merely acts of altruism.
Right, but that’s no fallacy. You’ll recall that, in Atlas Shrugged, Dagny helped out an old man who was down on his luck. And as Rand explained in VOS, selfishness does not preclude acts of charity, but merely acts of altruism.
