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."
28 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.
Craig:
no you choose to ignore the facts and history in favor of a theoretical definition.
??? I was/am LITERALLY responding to Rubio's complaint about the THEORY, as YOU posted. The THEORY is fine. The practice of communism - much like the practice of capitalism, is more problematic in the real world.
Again, Allende was not the most Democratic of leaders in Chile.
BUT, Pinochet - who the capitalists installed as leader of Chile - was a violent authoritarian. ONE nation with two practices. In THAT real world instance, the one with Capitalist support was the FAR more deadly and oppressive than the one legally elected by his people.
I'm literally just pushing back against what Rubio said about the THEORY. It's not the Theory that's problematic. it has been the practice, at least in recent history.
If you don't like that I'm responding to your actual post and the theory promoted by your post, then maybe you shouldn't post ideas that can't withstand basic reason and respectful consideration.
Grow up a bit, my man.
The theory, when removed from reality and placed in the best possible light and by ignoring human nature, might be okay at best. But, like everything else in the world, we judge theories by their results in the real world.
So far, your two shining examples of communism done “well” are a hunter/gatherer tribe in the African desert and Allende who by your own admission was not a good ruler. I can absolutely see why you’re such a fan with a track record like that. What’s next? You try to make Mao or Stalin look good?
This fantasy that you can divorce the theory from the practice is insane, but so is trying the same thing over and over and expecting different results.
Well the theory sounds awesome, but every time it’s tried it results in totalitarian rule, secret police, concentration camps, starvation, economic decline, and a very small ruling class which lives in luxury.
That sounds crazy, but if you want to sound crazy, I won’t stop you.
The problem with that imposing communism on any group of people is that it literally involves “the people” taking assets and property from the lawful owners and giving it to someone else. Even if it’s voted in, the minority will be forced to divest (it’s tarted up by calling it nationalization) itself of property by the threat of force of the majority.
Again, there’s nothing stopping Dan from buying an island and accepting volunteers to join his dictionary definition perfect communist society. Yet he and his buddies choose not to do so.
When you remove the incentive to risk, innovate, and invest to give it to the state, you lose the innovation that drives society forward.
I still can’t believe Dan is so supportive of (arguably) the two governmental philosophies that have resulted in conquest, slavery, starvation, oppression, and death at a scale that most humans find incomprehensible.
Let's look at Dan's definition again:
"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."
That it "aims to replace private property and a profit-based economy with public ownership and communal control of at least the major means of production" is not at all Biblical in any way. Even if all people agreed to this, that reduces the 10 Commandments to at least 9, as one can't steal what isn't owned. "Public ownership" is nonsensical, and people work to improve their own situation to a standard they believe is deserving to them. This disappears in a communist system, as the means by which one develops the ability to own property is wildly denied. The moment the "public" decides what one has built should be for "the public", the one who built it spent his time, sweat and money for that which he doesn't even have the choice to give it to "the public"...even if serving the public welfare was his driving motivation for building it in the first place.
Moreover, it reduces the 10 by another point, by its inherent covetous nature. Someone or some people eyeing that which belongs to others. Far better is our current system which allows those willing to determine to whom they should direct their charitable dollars, while at the same time helping...just by virtue of being a part of it, really...that prosperity will come to whomever chooses to avail themselves of all life (and God) has to offer.
Neither the passage in Acts, nor our first attempts by the Plymouth Colony, were coercive acts at all. They were agreed upon arrangements, very much like Dan suggests a communist society is. Both suffered from what Scripture teaches about human nature, which Dan denies: that we do have a sin nature, without which communist might actually work. In Acts, Ananias pretends to be totally down with the sharing but actually kept some of the property sale profits for himself. In Plymouth, the failure of the plan was due to those who wouldn't work as hard as those who understood what was being attempted. And this is the biggest failure of communism. Both of those stories proves it. For communism to work, there can be no one who isn't on board and all must regard every idea within it to be valid and desired. That gets harder and harder the larger the community grows.
I would submit that Dan is among those who could not be trusted to be on board with the plan, unless the plan was reduced to everyone living in their own dorm and working the crops the same way. That is, Dan's already shown he's not willing to do what's necessary to increase his own wealth, and I find it hard to imagine that he would work harder to increase the community's wealth, likely on the basis of "over consumption" and other "progressive" nonsense like that. Thus, Dan would not really be working to improve the lot of the community, but only faking it like Ananias.
Craig...
"I still can’t believe Dan is so supportive of (arguably) the two governmental philosophies that have resulted in conquest, slavery, starvation,"
I've been quite clear, I am wary of attempts at communist countries. That is hardly being so supportive. I guess the other one you're talking about is Muslims because you try to think of Muslims all as one group. I on the other hand condemn the violent and oppressive Muslims and celebrate the progressive and good Muslims. I don't blame all people in one group and I certainly don't support oppressive governments. Don't be a jackass, son.
It's that sort of stupidly false demonization and attacks that makes modern MAGA conservatives so ripe to support authoritarian governments like they do. You want to show credibility and that you can understand adult reasoning? Then admit that is not a fair or correct representation of what I have said. Then condemn your own authoritarian-leaning president. Apologize for voting for that. In other words, first remove the plank from your own eye.
Dan
Dan's example clearly states that the community "PREVENTS" any single individual or group from accumulating power, wealth or disproportionate status. That's totally authoritarian and despotic.
That’s a strange way to back away from
your support for these two ideological/governmental philosophies. All I need to do to evaluate Islam is look at the history, look at the map, listen to the victims and go from there.
You’re the one championing Islam and communism. Not me.
Why are you so weird? I support good Muslims who are good and progressive and decent human beings. I oppose bad Muslims. I support good Christians who are respectful and cause no harm and are not oppressive. I oppose bad Christians.
And I'm simply acknowledging the reality that the theories around communism are not inherently wrong or bad in and of themselves. That's all. That's all objectively rationally true. What in the name of all that's good and holy are you objecting to?
Lumping all people together in one group is the very definition of being bigoted. If you don't want to be accused of bigotry, don't say bigoted stuff.
Dan
Dan,
Trump is not at all authoritarian, you stupidly dishonest little girl. And as usual, being anti-American as well as being anti-Christ, Dan overstates American influence in the coup which overthrew Allende. It's a common belief, but a false one. The left doesn't care.
In the meantime, there was nothing good happening in Chile while Allende held power. He was destroying the place.
In any case, it stands that the notion of communism, even as Dan defines it, is not an accurate definition given the history of all attempts in install it. And again, there's nothing Biblical about it just because, as with Dan's brand of Christianity, there's no better than the most superficial of comparisons.
Craig...
"This fantasy that you can divorce the theory from the practice is insane, but so is trying the same thing over and over and expecting different results."
1. There's never been a truly communist state as it is described by Marx.
2. There have only been a handful or two that have been called communist states.
3. And for the most part those were all begun by actual authoritarians.
Once again in the real world if you have authoritarians operating under a capitalist system, you will have disaster. If you have authoritarians operating under a communist system, you will have disaster. The problem is not the capitalism or the communism. The problem is the authoritarianism in the real world.
4. That's hardly a significant sampling.
How many times did you have to shoot a basketball towards a hoop before it went in? More than ten times, I assume?
Dan
"I support good Christians who are respectful and cause no harm and are not oppressive." ...like oppressing the unborn in a most violent and barbaric manner to the tune of around 800K annually in this country alone. Dan doesn't oppose those Christians. He's one of them.
I’m not weird at all. You say you support some Muslims who meet your arbitrary criteria, while those Muslims sit silently by whine Islam as a whole runs amok.
I was unaware that anyone put you in the position to establish these definitions, and to define who is really Muslim and who’s not.
If you want to live in some fantasy, theory, world feel free. I’ll live in the real world where we can see the actual results of both Islam and communism. Reality should probably trump theory.
Good point. That this prevention has universally failed in real life seems germane as well.
Post a Comment