https://x.com/ericldaugh/status/2077747894497538258?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw
"One of the criticisms you sometimes hear of communism is that it 'sounds good in theory, but it never works in practice.'" "That's actually NOT TRUE. Communism does NOT sound good in theory. The world that envisions for all of us is small, flat, gray, leveled of all exception, drained of all that is good and noble in the human soul." "The world that envisions is a world without courage, a world without creativity, or ambition, a world without heroes, or glory, or great causes to strive towards, without a world without miracles, without men who rise above the rest to do incredible and extraordinary things." "And the world communism envisions is a world without God." "For these architects of revolutionary violence, the towering achievement of our civilization, for them, it's an unbearable humiliation, a reminder of what they cannot do and a reminder of what they cannot be. So they choose instead to destroy."
15 comments:
Marco is making a case for '28. Hard to argue against him. Though sadly from the same state, and thus somehow denied (because they're not Dems and won't make up a loophole), he and DeSantis would make a great ticket. At present I'd flip a coin to see who is P and who is VP. But again, both from Florida, so it won't happen. If they both run, at this point I'd be hard pressed to choose between them. Again, a coin toss. And between now and Nov '28, Marco will still be in office and Ron won't, so what does Ron do to keep pace? (At the very least, he'll need to learn how to run a better campaign.) There are no Dems who come within a hemisphere of either of these two men.
I agree that it would be a good ticket, and that both of them are setting themselves and the GOP up for possible success.
Rubio...
"Communism does NOT sound good in theory."
Well, that depends on who you ask, how it's defined and how it's enacted/ put in place. But yes, in THEORY, communism sounds noble, ideal, Godly, even.
The notion of,
"To each according to their need,
From each, according to their ability..."
Is, of course, deeply biblical as well as being deeply humane in the best sense.
"There was not a needy person among them, for those who owned property or houses would sell them... and put them at the feet of the Apostles, and they were distributed to each according to need."
(Acts 4:34-35)
On the face of it, that is a deeply rational, deeply communal, deeply loving notion. Nothing at all wrong with that unless you're against sharing and helping each other out .
Communism is roughly defined thusly...
"Communism: a political and economic doctrine that aims to replace private property and a profit-based economy with public ownership and communal control of at least the major means of production (e.g., mines, mills, and factories) and the natural resources of a society."
-Britannica
Shared resources, avoiding excess accumulation of wealth (with rational people recognizing what a trap and temptation great wealth is cursed with...), There's just nothing inherently bad about those ideals.
Again, nothing inherently wrong with that from a moral or rational point of view and, again, quite biblical for those who affirm Biblical teachings .
Rubio...
"The world that envisions for all of us is small, flat, gray, leveled of all exception, drained of all that is good and noble in the human soul."
Nonsense. None of that is part of the definition of communism. It's just not. Indeed communism is encouraging shared resources, watching out for the marginalized, engaging in creativity and art. All these things are objectively beautiful ideals.
Now having said that, Communism has way too often in practice had actual bad results where it led to fascism - which is not part of Communism. But adults understand the difference and the need to distinguish between fascism and Communism. They are not the same, of course.
Ultimately due to the flaws of human nature and the peril and temptations of greed, I think capitalism probably has some minor advantage over communism that's a practicing economic system, if nothing else, looking at the records of each economic system. Of course capitalism is full of great evil as well, which is why I favor ultimately some form of post-social democracy over either capitalism or communism.
Rubio is just objectively mistaken here.
Dan
Marco is great to listen to as he tears up the Demokrats/LEFTISTs.
Well the idiot has entered the conversation.
Acts is clearly talking about people who owned private property, had income/wealth who voluntarily chose to sell some of their personal property and give some of the proceeds to others. The story of Ananias and Sephira makes this clearer.
The thought that some people owe other people the fruits of their labor is hardly Biblical, certainly not where the state (using force/coercion) takes from some to give to others. Not to mention the massive fraud we’ve seen of late.
The excuses for the fact that Communism has always failed and always results in poverty for the majority and wealth for the majority with starvation and a police state for good measure.
Capitalism has dropped the instance of extreme poverty drastically in the last 50 years or so.
Idiocy at the highest level. But keep supporting the socialist/communist slate.
Craig
"The thought that some people owe other people the fruits of their labor is hardly Biblical, certainly not where the state (using force/coercion) takes from some to give to others."
Sigh. Look again at the very definition of the word, communism.
"Communism: a political and economic doctrine that aims to replace private property and a profit-based economy with public ownership and communal control of at least the major means of production (e.g., mines, mills, and factories) and the natural resources of a society."
Because no matter how much I look, the notion of taking by force or that people are owed anything are simply not in the definition. Do you understand that? You're talking about something different. You're talking about coercion. You're talking about theft. You're talking about abuse of power. That's more like your pervert king that you've got in power now. Communism is not by force, not by definition. Y'all are reading into it things that just aren't there.
Looking at the definition and the actual meaning of the word, what is troubling, so very troubling to you, that you can't imagine it being seen as a reasonable moral notion?
Is it the case that the idea of shared community is so abhorrent and foreign to you that you can't even imagine someone doing it outside of coercion and corruption? Have you not read the Bible?
You're helping establish a few things things that conservatives are demonstrating that they have extreme deficits in:
1. Nuance
2. Reading comprehension
3. Grace
4. just some basic human decency and humanity
5. The ability to understand things outside of their own worldview
Dan
I’m aware of what the theoretical definition of communism is. It’s the government using force to take things, businesses, and resources from one group of people to give them to others. Strangely enough, it’s never worked that way. The communist leaders lived in luxury while millions starved to death in the USSR. Venezuela nationalized everything and destroyed one of the strongest economies in South America.
The Pilgrims tried to implement proto communism and starved.
At least partly because communism is based on an idiotic theory that the value of something increases based on the labor involved to produce it.
I look at history and I see absolutely zero communist countries that did not see those in power stealing from everyone. Secret police, purges, reeducation camps, millions starved, more millions in labor camps, and tens of millions dead, is the documented legacy of communism. Fortunately we have the benefit of History when we evaluate various economic and religious Ju systems and both Islam and Communism haven’t fared well when the history is studied. Look at countries that transitioned from communism to capitalism, and how their people fared.
Again with the unsupported claims. The decline of extreme poverty can only be attributed to capitalism.
It’s impressive to see how committed you are to advocating for (potentially) the two worst governing/economic philosophies in human history. Who would have imagined Dan simping for oppressive, totalitarian systems.
Craig, missing the point, still...
"It’s the government using force to take things, businesses, and resources from one group of people to give them to others."
I refer you back, once again, to the definition of communism.
"Communism: a political and economic doctrine that aims to replace private property and a profit-based economy with public ownership and communal control of at least the major means of production (e.g., mines, mills, and factories) and the natural resources of a society."
WHERE, specifically, in that definition are the words, FORCE and "TAKE THINGS..."??
HINT: those words are not there. That's your definition not THE definition.
In a free democratic republic we agree to taxation as part of the public agreement to live in that country. If you're going to live there, you're going to pay the taxes. Therefore it's the agreement that you have in that country.
In a free democratic republic with a communist economic system, the new public agreement would be that businesses, etc., are communally owned. It's not taking anything. It's not for us. It's the agreement you have if you live in that country. If you don't want to agree with that, in a free republic you are free to leave. You're not free to force your will on others. That's actual fascism.
Once again you're demonstrating an incapacity to understand words and nuance.
Now have there been some nominally communist nations that were run by fascists and not a free republic? Yes and those are awful. The same is true for capitalist societies run by fascists or those that lean fascist, like our current administration. Fascist tendencies are bad wherever they appear, whether in communist or capitalistic economic systems.
Nuance. Read for understanding and not grade school-level arguing points. Be better.
At the very least can you agree that force and taking are literally not part of the definition of communism?
Dan
I could. Dan's exposed his marixist sensibilities for years now. It's not a surprise he'd eventually give a full-throated endorsement, as he is here.
Looking back at the first colonies, the people agreed to try the communal system and it didn't work because of that which Dan pretends is "human tradition": our sin nature. Communism isn't a "cheerful giver" philosophy because the giver doesn't get to decide how much to give, when to give it or to whom it will be given. It's all government mandates, including what one does for a living...if that's living...and if there's no property...and Dan's own definition begins with "replacing" it, there can be no giving nor charity because that requires having property to give.
The problem here is simple: Dan is devoid of the ability to understand that the definition he uses is the con (he's into cons). One has no choice under communism...ever. There's nothing Biblical about it except in the most superficial manner, which is exactly matches Dan's Christianity.
Maybe try reading for comprehension instead of simply repeating yourself.
Name one example of communism in reality which has not involved using force/coercion to take things from those who own them? Factories, farms, stores, industries, all taken by the state.
So in your hypothetical scenario, those who own things (mostly shareholders) will magically give up the things they’ve built/bought over to “the people” who will magically be able to run the businesses, farms, and industries properly.
The problem is, for example, is that the value of a company like Apple isn’t in the (slave) labor required to build the stuff, its the intellectual property that designed the stuff and the capital that funded the development and factories.
I can agree that every communist country in history devolved into a police state, with a dysfunctional economy.
What, pray tell, is the motivation for anyone to do anything more than the bare minimum in your communist paradise?
This could be the absolute atupidest series of comments you’ve ever spewed.
We’ve seen the data regarding liberal women and mental health, but attempting to argue that we need to keep trying a failed economic system over and over again, makes me wonder.
Yeah, lots of people starving seems to go along with every communist country in history.
Craig, still missing the point ...
"Name one example of communism in reality which has not involved using force/coercion to take things from those who own them?"
I'll remind you of what Rubio said that started this conversation. ..
"One of the criticisms you sometimes hear of communism is that it 'sounds good in theory, but it never works in practice.'" "That's actually NOT TRUE. Communism does NOT sound good
in theory."
He's talking about the THEORY of communism. The theory of communism does not mention forcible taking. It literally simply does not. Once again I refer you to the definition.
That most of the attempts at communism have been enacted by authoritarians is not a problem with the THEORY of communism. It's a problem with the authoritarians.
And I'll remind you of Allende in Chile. He was legally elected by a majority of his nation and he tried to enact communism as he was elected to do. He was not the level of authoritarian that, say, Trump is or certainly not that Putin is, (who is not a communist I don't think) but he was problematic to be sure. Not fully embracing of democratic values.
On the other hand the conservative capitalists in the free Republic of the USA, overthrew him in a violent coup and replaced them with an actual authoritarian. Who was the more authoritarian in that case, the capitalists or the communist?
Nonetheless, AS I'VE SAID, the history of communist economic practices have too often turned out bad that I'm wary of a purely communist economic system. But that's exactly the point. It may sound good in theory but in practice it hasn't worked out so well.
I agree with that notion, just not with Rubio's false claim that the theory is problematic.
Read for understanding, indeed.
Craig...
"What, pray tell, is the motivation for anyone to do anything more than the bare minimum in your communist paradise?"
The Beloved Community, the Realm of God, a better world, a healthier, safer world? For the sake that hard work is good for the soul? Because it's good to be a role model of hard work for your children and the next generation? Because it's pleasing to help others and do good work? Because doing good work is good for your health and good for your psyche and good for your soul? Because you believe in the golden rule and hope that someone will also do good work on your behalf just like you would do good work for someone else?
I literally could go on all day. The benefits of doing good work are well-studied and obvious and reasonable.
How many reasons do you need?
Again, it's like you don't understand grace or the concept of sacrificial love on behalf of humanity. And You all think that we are the antichrist??
Dan
Craig:
Perhaps you're not aware of societies/cultures like the !Kung and other egalitarian societies that have existed throughout history. They have lived without the notion of private lands, class groups, etc. From AI:
"The !Kung (or Ju/'hoansi) of the Kalahari Desert and similar ancient foraging groups utilized active mechanisms to maintain social, economic, and gender equality. Anthropologists define this as "fierce egalitarianism"—a system where communities consciously prevented any single individual or group from accumulating power, wealth, or disproportionate status"
Not that these groups are any more "pristine" or prone to violence and conflict the way the rest of us are, but there are/have been examples of people choosing to live in community in a communal manner. That would include, of course, the early church.
But what did they know!
But again, at least nowadays, the idea of privately owned shit is pretty ingrained in us and that manna is hard to overcome. I'm wary of any attempts at Marxist/egalitarian efforts in the context of modern nation states.
But none of that is proof that the CONCEPTS of the theory of Marxism are inherently bad. Again, as he lead with, it DOES sound good in theory. It sounds gracious and moral, in theory. It sounds extremely Christ-ian in theory. In practice, it's much more difficult. Just as it is difficult in practice in the real world to have a non-exploitative, non-oppressive capitalist system.
Economics are just tough, in practice (whether communist/egalitarian or capitalist). Just ask most who have tried to live in intentional communities.
So, no you choose to ignore the facts and history in favor of a theoretical definition.
Well, in your Pollyanna, rise colored, fantasy world where everyone believes your pablum and no one has any desire to better themselves beyond the place assigned to them by the state.
I’ll live in the real world where extreme poverty dropped exponentially thanks to capitalism, rather than the one with starvation, poverty, and a police state.
This idiocy needs to stop, I’m saying this for your own good. Shilling for two of the most destructive governing systems in history isn’t a good look. But I’m sure you have a fantasy of staying in your cushy non profit gig after communism takes over.
This is your best example of the roaring success of communism? Some random desert hunter/gather tribe stuck in the same lifestyle they had centuries ago.
Yeah, privately owned shit, freedom, and the shit capitalism protects are pretty popular. Especially when poverty and hunger are the alternatives.
Scripture is full (even Acts) of the concept of private property and the protection thereof. But it’s just one more out of context proof text so you can put lipstick on a pig.
FYI, nothing is stopping you from forming your own little commune and living out the ideals you claim to be so devoted to.
Post a Comment