The New Appeal Of Communism

[georgephillip]

Stalin concentrated power in the hands of a few, turning communism into a totalitarian dictatorship instead of distributing power equally among the population. The richest 1% had the same political leverage there they have here.

In fact it was Lenin who established a totalitarian dictatorship, as prescribed by Marx. Communist requires totalitarianism - LEFTISM requires authoritarianism. All leftist systems will be authoritarian, as people do not work for their own injury without others forcing them to.

The elite in America have nowhere the level of power that they did under the Communists.

That's my understanding, too, regarding Lenin.
I've read (Chomsky) that Lenin dissolved the power of worker soviets and concentrated power among the party elite. Which sounds a little corporate, to me.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Bear with me.
Are you saying property rights supersede human rights?

I'm stating the fact that without property rights, there are no human rights. Unless one can own the clothes on his back and shoes on his feet, any talk of rights is a farce.

I'll go further, property rights are the basis of civilization - no peoples can be civilized without respect for and protection of property rights.

 

[georgephillip]

Bear with me.
Are you saying property rights supersede human rights?

I'm stating the fact that without property rights, there are no human rights. Unless one can own the clothes on his back and shoes on his feet, any talk of rights is a farce.

I'll go further, property rights are the basis of civilization - no peoples can be civilized without respect for and protection of property rights.

Do you see any way for property rights to conflict with human rights?
For example:

Boycott Shell/Free Nigeria: The main issues

 

[bripat9643]

Possibly any new appeal for socialism stems from the fact that liberty and equality are conflicting values that can only be reconciled when human rights trump property rights?

Monthly Review | Popular Movements Toward Socialism

There can be no human rights without property rights.

This is the lesson of the 20th century.

Bear with me.
Are you saying property rights supersede human rights?

Property rights are human rights, numskull. How many times does that have to be explained to you?

 

[Uncensored2008]

Do you see any way for property rights to conflict with human rights?
For example:

Boycott Shell/Free Nigeria: The main issues

Your hatred of corporations has nothing to do with property rights.

If one cannot be secure in their property, both personal and real, there can be no rights at all.

You seek to strip others of rights and replace them with group based privilege. You seek to return to the days of rulers with unfettered power over the ruled. Where all is owned by the overlord, including people.

 

[georgephillip]

Do you see any way for property rights to conflict with human rights?
For example:

Boycott Shell/Free Nigeria: The main issues

Your hatred of corporations has nothing to do with property rights.

If one cannot be secure in their property, both personal and real, there can be no rights at all.

You seek to strip others of rights and replace them with group based privilege. You seek to return to the days of rulers with unfettered power over the ruled. Where all is owned by the overlord, including people.

As usual, we're talking past each other.
I'll try again.
In your Randian universe, is it possible a property right might serve to exclude a person from access to her/his means of life? (Shell in Nigeria, for example)

 

[Uncensored2008]

As usual, we're talking past each other.
I'll try again.
In your Randian universe, is it possible a property right might serve to exclude a person from access to her/his means of life? (Shell in Nigeria, for example)

In your distopian fantasy, is it possible for one to simply seek what they want in another place, rather than point to evil corporations as depriving them of - well, something.

Your straw man is not germane to the question of property rights.

 

[georgephillip]

As usual, we're talking past each other.
I'll try again.
In your Randian universe, is it possible a property right might serve to exclude a person from access to her/his means of life? (Shell in Nigeria, for example)

In your distopian fantasy, is it possible for one to simply seek what they want in another place, rather than point to evil corporations as depriving them of - well, something.

Your straw man is not germane to the question of property rights.

What about the dystopian realities faced by the Ogoni?
What advice do you and Ayn have for them?
(She's still dead, you know)

"Since the Nigerian government hanged 9 environmental activists in 1995 for speaking out against exploitation by Royal Dutch/Shell and the Nigeria government, outrage has exploded worldwide.

"The tribunal which convicted the men was part of a joint effort by the government and Shell to suppress a growing movement among the Ogoni people: a movement for environmental justice, for recognition of their human rights and for economic justice.

Boycott Shell/Free Nigeria: The main issues

 

[Uncensored2008]

What about the dystopian realities faced by the Ogoni?
What advice do you and Ayn have for them?
(She's still dead, you know)

They have nothing to do with your premise nor with your thread. Corrupt governments in Africa are not germane to property rights questions.

 

[georgephillip]

What about the dystopian realities faced by the Ogoni?
What advice do you and Ayn have for them?
(She's still dead, you know)

They have nothing to do with your premise nor with your thread. Corrupt governments in Africa are not germane to property rights questions.

Believe it or not...I'm trying to understand what you are trying to say here.
Give me your definition of property rights.

"Property rights are theoretical constructs in economics for determining how a resource is used and owned. Resources can be owned (the subject of property) by individuals, associations or governments.[1] Property rights can be viewed as an attribute of an economic good. This attribute has four broad components[2] and is often referred to as a bundle of rights..."

Property rights (economics) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Uncensored2008]

Believe it or not...I'm trying to understand what you are trying to say here.
Give me your definition of property rights.

"Property rights are theoretical constructs in economics for determining how a resource is used and owned. Resources can be owned (the subject of property) by individuals, associations or governments.[1] Property rights can be viewed as an attribute of an economic good. This attribute has four broad components[2] and is often referred to as a bundle of rights..."

Property rights (economics) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Because we are speaking of human rights, by extension we are speaking of individual property rights.

Property rights are simply the acknowledgement by the state or civil rulers of the right of individuals to hold legal title to assets or land.

The ability to own assets is the recognition of sovereignty of the individual. Example, a 1 year old child may have a favorite toy, but the mother seeing the toy dirty can take the toy away at a whim. The baby does not own the toy, because the baby is not sovereign.

ALL civil rights are predicated upon the notion of the sovereignty of the individual, if the state has ultimate title to lands or assets, then the individual has no actual rights, even if the state grants occasional privilege, IF a subject cannot own property, then the subject is actually property of the state, a slave. A slave has no rights.

It is the sovereignty conferred by the right to own property that forms the foundation of all civil rights. Civil rights cannot exist absent property rights.

 

[Kimura]

Taboo? Are you serious?

Yes, dead serious.

Progressives, Marxists and other tweed jacketed economic central planner ne'er-do-wells, have been bitching and moaning about wealthy people and wealth distribution since at least the Industrial Revolution.

Robber Barons!
The Money Trust!
Corporate Fat cats!
The 1%!

So pointing out wealth inequality makes one a Marxist? Have you even read Piketty's Capital?

Additionally, America has had nearly half a century and more that $10 trillion of LBJ's dismally failed income/wealth redistribution scheme, known colloquially as the War on Poverty, yet all the career complainers can do is gripe about how much worse things are! Let me guess, you believe that failure is proof that even more central planning and redistribution is called for, right?

Methinks that you have mistaken the word taboo for a couple of other "t" words; tiresome and tedious.

.

We could go back to before we had social safety nets, that type of society was clearly a success by any metric. You need to do yourself a favor and open a history book.

Secondly, there's really no such thing as "wealth redistribution", unless you consider demand accounts being debited as somehow "redistributing" real resources.

 

[Kimura]

There can be no human rights without property rights.

This is the lesson of the 20th century.

Bear with me.
Are you saying property rights supersede human rights?

Property rights are human rights, numskull. How many times does that have to be explained to you?

And property rights only exist because of the state. The state defines and enforces property rights.

 

[georgephillip]

Bear with me.
Are you saying property rights supersede human rights?

Property rights are human rights, numskull. How many times does that have to be explained to you?

And property rights only exist because of the state. The state defines and enforces property rights.

Do you think there are human rights that exist independently of property rights?

 

[Kimura]

Property rights are human rights, numskull. How many times does that have to be explained to you?

And property rights only exist because of the state. The state defines and enforces property rights.

Do you think there are human rights that exist independently of property rights?

Of course, no question.

 

[georgephillip]

And property rights only exist because of the state. The state defines and enforces property rights.

Do you think there are human rights that exist independently of property rights?

Of course, no question.

The contrasts between property rights and human rights are, no doubt, highly complex normative relations; however, it seems to me, in general, property rights represent interests of legal persons with respect to "things" while human rights protect the interests of humans with respect to themselves.

 

[Zombie_Pundit]

Believe it or not...I'm trying to understand what you are trying to say here.
Give me your definition of property rights.

"Property rights are theoretical constructs in economics for determining how a resource is used and owned. Resources can be owned (the subject of property) by individuals, associations or governments.[1] Property rights can be viewed as an attribute of an economic good. This attribute has four broad components[2] and is often referred to as a bundle of rights..."

Property rights (economics) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Because we are speaking of human rights, by extension we are speaking of individual property rights.

Property rights are simply the acknowledgement by the state or civil rulers of the right of individuals to hold legal title to assets or land.

The ability to own assets is the recognition of sovereignty of the individual. Example, a 1 year old child may have a favorite toy, but the mother seeing the toy dirty can take the toy away at a whim. The baby does not own the toy, because the baby is not sovereign.

ALL civil rights are predicated upon the notion of the sovereignty of the individual, if the state has ultimate title to lands or assets, then the individual has no actual rights, even if the state grants occasional privilege, IF a subject cannot own property, then the subject is actually property of the state, a slave. A slave has no rights.

It is the sovereignty conferred by the right to own property that forms the foundation of all civil rights. Civil rights cannot exist absent property rights.

Is it safe to conclude that you oppose antitrust laws and eminent domain? If so, what is your position on the Fifth Amendment?

 

[Zombie_Pundit]

In theory, Communism died when the Berlin Wall fell, after Reagan defeated the Soviet Union. America took a sharp turn to the left in 2008 with the failures of the Bush administration leading many to question the free market as a viable engine of growth and prosperity. Even so, few would openly speak of, much less advocate for Communism as defined by Marx.

The seminal work of Marx is "Capital," which was published in two volumes, with a third cobbled together after his death. "Capital" is far more influential than the "Communist Manifesto" in terms of explaining the "why and how" of Communism.

But Marx published his work in 1867, under the title "Das Kapital, Kritik der politischen Ökonomie." What could this have to do with America, 150 years later? The answer is French Communist Thomas Piketty, who has adopted the same name for a modernized version of the Marxist screed. Piketty is not some fringe, but has occupied the #1 spot of the New York Times best seller list for 5 weeks. Communism is extremely popular.

Given the history of Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Ho, Pol Pot, Kim, et al, how could people become enamored by Marxism? Promotion by the popular media and leftist culture, for one thing. Piketty has over 400 pages of statistics in his manifesto, I assure you that George Clooney and Cindy Crawford are not reading this, BUT it is an expected accoutrement at the elitist parties and events that Hollywood royalty attend.

What does the reemergence of Communism as high fashion mean for the world? We will all find out.

r > g

"Communism" was a Utopian fantasy popularized by Marx. Piketty's book is about economics.

 

[Uncensored2008]

And property rights only exist because of the state. The state defines and enforces property rights.

Do you believe that kindness and kittens exist only because rulers decreed them?

 

[Uncensored2008]

Property rights are human rights, numskull. How many times does that have to be explained to you?

And property rights only exist because of the state. The state defines and enforces property rights.

Do you think there are human rights that exist independently of property rights?

His is a statement of abject stupidity.

A man puts up a fence around land in the wilds of Greenland, a thousand miles from the nearest human or government. He declares the land to be his,

Does he have a right to his property? Is anyone taking his land or possessions from him? This illustrates a natural right - the right of property exists absent government or the state - with no state, property rights are axiomatic. The state can only INFRINGE rights, not grant them. Kimura thinks that since men with guns can kill a property owner and take by force what is his, then they are the giver of rights - which is the opposite of reality - they are the taker of rights and can give nothing.

A just society is founded on the recognition and support of natural rights, as this nation was. A tyrant is formed on the basis that the ruled are the property of the rulers, to do with as they please, as Kimura suggests.