Well, I think we’d argue over the degree to which that is true. Still, considering how often I turn a phrase here that turns out to be misunderstood or ill-considered, I’ll certainly accept your clarification on this point.
Mea too.
Thanks. Once in a while I might write or say something and then wonder how in the heck people interpreted it entirely differently. Generally it means that it was said unclearly, as it was in this case.
In your case, sure, but just try being a left-winger on a board dominated by conservatives and libertarians, like this one!
Well, they are working to some degree, that’s true. China seems to be working better & better, the more capitalist it becomes. As far as whether communism & civil liberties are not mutually exclusive, I remain unconvinced. I believe that people have a civil right to reap most of the benefits of the fruits of their own labor. I also believe they have the right to help determine, through democratic vote, how much they will keep for themselves, and how much will go to the society at large. I am not sure communism can ever survive in a situation where that vote is truly free, as I think that human nature will cause a pull away from communism and towards capitalism. Therefore, the only way that a truly communist government (as opposed to socialist) can hang onto that system is to not allow democracy.
I don’t see why you’d say that. They certainly don’t appear to be doing that. They are liberalizing to some degree by going capitalist to some degree. Do you really think that’s just a coincidence?
Communism seems to work OK on a very small scale-- like a family. On a larger scale, it would work great-- if we were social insects (which, oddly enough, consist of one large extended family). But we humans are power-grubbing primates. Sorry but that is just what we are. If we want to congregate in nation states, we would be foolish to organize around a system that doesn’t mesh with what we are as a species. Communism concentrates the management of a country’s wealth in the hands of a small group at the top. If we were ants, that small group could be trusted to share it equally and fairly. But we’re not ants, and what will always happen is that someone will take the opportunity to monopolize that power and abuse it.
Capitalism can result in the dangerous congregation of wealth, but it doesn’t have to. People are allowed to won things, which they are not able to do in a communist system. When you own your own “means of production”, you aren’t dependent on the government for your survival. When you next meal is safely in the pantry (instead of waiting for you down at the government cooperative), you can risk criticizing the government and know you can still eat tomorrow.
I think we have to disagree here. Humans are a social creature as are some other primates. If you had the right people at the top, communism could work. I agree that power corrupts and it is generally doomed to failure. But in theory it could work. In contrast, I think libertarianism is a non-starter just because humans are by nature social and interdependent.
And an exact copy of the scene in Duck Soup.
Though Lucy did look more like Harpo than his brother did. (or vice versa, actually, since Harpo disguised himself as Groucho.)
Ah, that quest for the perfect enlightened autocrat. We’ve been waiting for him since Plato. He hasn’t arrived yet.
I think you badly misunderstand libertarianism - it does not presuppose loneliness and solitude. Nor does it presuppose a weak society - indeed, for it to work, society must be strong, and its churches and charities and families and businesses would do much of the work we depend on government for now.
Mind you, I do not believe in pure libertarianism. But your caricature of it seems unfair to me.
I think the watershed was actually the German Soviet nonaggression pact , which led directly to the invasion of Poland by both. In the 30s communists were anti-Fascists, which had appeal for the left who felt the mainstream of America didn’t get it. After Stalin threw in with Hitler, anyone still supporting Communism was clearly more of a slave to ideology, and lots of people broke off.
It was the place where idealism could be distinguished from stupidity.
Anyone justifying a treaty with Hitler could easily justify the theft of atomic secrets.
Any argument based on the iron facts of human nature is closer to theology than political science. Nonetheless, we are monkeys, and monkeys are social and tribal. The trick our ancestors appear to have used is social status: the humonkey that obtains the most, shares the most, and his status increases. The insanely selfish monkey that rejects the tribe will be rejected by the tribe, and his genes are toast. He ain’t gonna get no jungle love!
“A man will do many things to be loved, but he’ll do damn near anything to be envied.”
- Mark Twain, paraphrased
Neither system is well suited to H. sapiens.
Although every brand of communism isn’t the same, it was common among early communist thinkers to believe that a new type of human being would emerge from a communist society-- one that literally had changed into, as Lenin envisioned: someone altruist in spirit, communal in outlook, sacrificial in his labour for the common good, boundless in his fight for world revolution. I’m sure that sounded wonderfully scientific back in the days when human nature was thought to be infinitely malleable and that people could be conditioned to be anything by design. We know better now.
Yes, humans have a social, cooperative nature to a certain extent. We also crave freedom, but not at the complete loss of some level of security. Communism posits a stateless society, but in fact demands a state of frighteningly broad powers. If you start with a such a system, I just can’t see that you can liberalize it without changing its very nature. Once the reigns of power are handed over to someone, even if that person the most benign person in the world, someone else not so benign is going to usurp that power.
OTOH, if you start with a capitalist system and apply the moderating factors of a liberal democracy, you seem to strike the right balance between our competing desires (one for freedom, the other for security). We can (obviously) argue all day about exactly how to strike that balance. The main difference is that a free market system does not require an over-arching state to control the economy. A communist system does (regardless of what their sales literature says).
Most certainly does. It is a central axiom of capitalism that the guy who can buy the most can get it at the least price. By which means capital tends to clot, cluster and accumulate: them what’s got, gets more. And more. And so it goes…
There most definitely needs be some controls on that. Wal Mart will not rule the world any better than Lenin.
Switzerland!?? A libertarian country? You shittin’ me?
Switzerland is a libertarian country in the sense that Norway is a communist country. I.e., both are firmly planted in the middle ground of capitalist-welfare-state mixed economies, although Switzerland leans somewhat to the capitalist end of that spectrum and Norway somewhat to the socialist end.
Neither Switzerland nor British Hong Kong could reasonably be described as a genuinely libertarian country, AFAICT. Both took for granted things like mandatory taxation, publicly funded social programs, territorial sovereignty, public roads, and all sorts of other stuff that libertarians like to file under the headings “tyranny”, “theft”, “enslavement”, and their ilk.
[QUOTE=Voyager]
I think the watershed was actually the German Soviet nonaggression pact , which led directly to the invasion of Poland by both. In the 30s communists were anti-Fascists, which had appeal for the left who felt the mainstream of America didn’t get it. After Stalin threw in with Hitler, anyone still supporting Communism was clearly more of a slave to ideology, and lots of people broke off.
It was the place where idealism could be distinguished from stupidity.
Anyone justifying a treaty with Hitler could easily justify the theft of atomic secrets.[/QUO
You mean people like Charles Linbergh, the members of the America First Committee, the Prime Minister of Great Britain and the majority of the American people who opposed intervention into WWII until the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor.
If it wasn’t for Stalin, the guy who threw in with Hitler, and the Soviet people you’d probably be speaking German right now but you wouldn’t be doing it on the internet unless you were wearing a brown shirt.
Neville Chamberlain was against the war up to Pearl Harbor? News to me. 
Lindbergh and the Bund were hardly leftists. The nonaggression pact was made before WW II started, of course, so reaction to it had nothing to do with interventionism.
As for Stalin, you are surely aware that he pooh-poohed his generals’ warnings about a German attack until it was almost too late. The Russian Army fought very well, but Stalin had no choice but to be on our side. If Hitler hadn’t attacked him, I doubt you’d be remembering him all that fondly. It was Hitler’s blunder, not Stalin’s virtue that helped us.
Ever read The Guglag Archipelago, all three volumes? It might be a cure for your rosey view of Communism and Stalin.
As who?
HK has generally been touted as the closest thing to a libertarian state that has existed. Milton Friedman often made that point. While they had most of the same institutions you could find in any western country, those institutions were more limited in size. Make of that what you may.
I’ve never heard Switzerland touted as a libertarian state, though.
Well, I guess it depends on your definitino of “over-arching”.
In a communist state, the government runs everything-- the army, the post office, the schools the farms, the factories, the stores, the press. Everything. 100% of GDP is controlled by the state. (Excluding, of course, the large underground economy found in almost every communist country.) And the idea that the New Communist Man, who is supposed to emerge in the communist utopia, will allow the state “whither away” is pseudo-scientific nonsense.
In a capitalist country the government has a much more limited scope. Judging strictly by taxes, a federal government need only control a fraction of GDP-- in the US it’s about 20%. But I don’t know if that’s even an accurate statement since the production of those taxes is not directly controlled by the state-- I suspect that overstates the case some.
Country singer. Sings about real estate, capital gains.
I have no rosey view of stalinism which is what you should be calling it and perhaps i phrased it badly but since you were equating communists with those who appeased hitler and would therefore have no qualms about stealing america’s atomic bomb secrets i thought that you might want to apply the same standard to great britain. i was referring to the vast majority of americans who were against the war up until pearl harbor, not chamberlain. the same applies to lindbergh - it was not my point, but yours - those who truck with persons like hitler might also steal america’s secrets.
whether or not stalin believed hitler would attack him there is no question that his non-aggression pact was intended to prevent a loss of russian life probably the same thing that motivated chamberlain and every other leader of every other country when they agree to treaties.
i agree with those who would say that stalin was an unprincipled, power - mad dictator. whether or not he had some redeeming qualities, such as a genuine belief in an egalitarian system i don’t know and nor do i care. my only point is that communism is no more evil than the catholic church or the united states of america. it is a philosophy that depends for success on the behavior of people and therein lies its major flaw. the same flaw that exists within the church and within the u.s. government. were there no rosenberg case i believe that the american communist party could have a positive influence on contemporary america. but as i said initially, i have no hope of convincing you.