Leftist Antifa calls for revolution: hangs Trump effigy

You keep using the term "communism" wrong. Trust me on this.

 

Yeeeah... it also completely debunks any fears anyone is seriously planning revolutionary overthrow of US government, does it? Unless we're talking right wing anti-government nut jobs, who really talk about it and who have way more guns. Not that it's nearly enough to actually do it, though.

To be clear: to talk communist revolution after what we saw basically all XX century is mind-boggingly stupid. But that's not news. Far-left types were always imbeciles, just like far-right ones. They even have some common causes, like Ukrainian famine-genocide denial, and Putin worship in general. Antisemitism, too.

 

Stanislav, socialism is a step towards communism. Marxism, either through socialism or communism, has never been an economically viable form of governance because:

• The people suffer under it.
  
• It always results in insolvency (or in capitalist terms: bankruptcy).

The United States has a founding father named Benjamin Franklin and he identified the perils of socialism early-on when he said: “When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.” Nonetheless, socialists (communists) tout Marxism as a utopia and their doctrinal methodology to achieve communism is to espouse revolution (violence) to overthrow preexisting governments.

 

You're using the word "socialism" wrong, too.
"Marxism" is not a form of governance , either. It's an economic and sociopolitic theory. Major intellectual accomplishment, largely debunked by history in all its major detailed predictions. Countries that do try to implement doctrinaire "socialism" (nationalized production) do eventually fail. Venezuela is good example; Cuba is another (which would work better if they didn't have US "blockade" to scapegoat). Then again, no significant US politician advocates anything like that.

Ugh, that's an argument against democracy. Also, FDR said "The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little". Quote war ensues.

Yeah, to advocate for a communist revolution now is idiotic. One of the problems with Bernie is that, while he calls for no such thing, he keeps to use revolutionary rhetoric as if it's a good thing. Then again, your country was founded on violent overthrow of a legitimate if tyrannical government. While eg. Canada's was not. Which would be a reason to gloat, except I think you guys win this comparison.

 

I guess that individual liberty is kind of the human default condition, since we are always making choices in our individual lives. But living in social groups has always placed limits on individual freedom of choice. Individual liberty is constantly being negotiated, today as much as ever.

Freedom depends on the ability to make choices. And that in turn requires that people possess a range of options.

I'm a big supporter of state and local rights and autonomies (and conversely a smaller federal government). I'd like to see the United States be lots of local social experiments taking place here and there. I think that's how the Founders envisioned it. The Tenth Amendment (1789) reads: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the People."

If Idaho or Wyoming want to have rugged-individualist minimal government and maximum individual freedom then fine, provided that they adhere to the Constitution. If California wants to turn itself into a European-style social-democratic welfare state, where every little action is government regulated in the name of the group, then they should be able to do that too, provided they adhere to the Constitution. And if smaller localities want to double down on that, adding still more regulations and government programs to the mix, then they should be able to, again given continued adherence to the Constitution.

My point is that Big Government can't be imposed from the top, from Washington in the form of one-size-fits-all laws, programs and regulations applicable to the whole country, without in-so-doing making smaller government impossible. Larger and more intrusive government needs to bubble up from the bottom, in response to popular demand in the 'bluer' and more "left" leaning localities. People always should have the ability to vote with their feet, by making choices about what kind of social regime they want to live in.

Individual liberty is also dependent on freedom of thought. That means a diversity of opinion where many alternatives are floated and discussed and nobody has the power to silence ideas they don't like. I fear that at the moment we are moving violently away from that ideal towards totalitarianism as all of the schools, universities, news and entertainment media start to speak with one single ideological voice, as Facebook, Google and Twitter try to censor our news-feeds and when non-conforming speakers on university campuses are met with violence and riots (with university administrations' complicity if not outright support).

 

Stanislav, Marxism encourages the working class people (proletariats) to overthrow [by violence] the wealthy capitalists (proletariats) and then replace the socioeconomic-sociopolitical infrastructure with a __________ form of government.

 

I honestly do not remember Marx's canonical answer. Lenin's was "the dictatorship of proletariat", which is, of course, the biggest point the whole utopia unravels.
OTOH, I am confused. Are you advocating governance by wealthy capitalists? That is, in a word, disturbing as heck.

 

Stanislav, please click here to have your question answered.

 

I've knew of it long before I knew of you. I go back so far that I recall VONU. I go back so far as to recall the anarchist fringe calling for unilateral disarmament. I go back so far as to remember two libertarian bozos shouting down Joan Kennedy Taylor as she was trying to answer a question. My question.

I like the simpler versions as they are more intuitive and less begging of argument. What none capture intuitively is the fact that you can't much increase control along one axis without increasing control along both.

 

Why are you writing "[commie bogeymen] want to overthrow wealthy capitalists" then? It sounds like you accept Marx's argument that the wealthy are the real rulers, only taking Ayn Rand's position that they are the rightful rulers.

In general, it is not easy to have a conversation if terms are not defined and, eg., "communism" can include things like universal access to healthcare.

 

Sure, sure. In real life, it is more complicated though. It reminded me about a point Bernie made that Johann pointed out, https://www.degreeinfo.com/index.php?threads/bernie-sanders-on-canadian-health-care.51176/#post-502600: "How "free" is an American, 70 years old, who can't afford the prescription medication (s)he needs to stay alive?"

 

I've noticed that real life can be complicated.

If you think it's expensive now then just wait until it's free.

Correlation does not preclude causation and the correlation to rising prices is government largess. Same as with education. Go figure.

 

Yeah, go figure. Each and every other developed nation has a form of universal health, and while problems are numerous, each and every one of them has it cheaper per-capita for at least comparable outcomes. I'm essentially a Canadian by default, but I rather like the security my Ontario Health Insurance Card affords. Especially after being downsized right before my daughter's birth. I can even put up with an occasional doctors' strike.

You guys are losing the healthcare debate.

 

Stanislav, understanding that "he who has the gold makes the rules" is not an endorsement of Marxism or revolution against the United States Constitution.

 

What suddenly happened to "for the people, by the people"?

 

You guys? I had no idea I was with those guys. Who are they?

The losers in the health care debate will be who imagines government to be their friend.

 

"The government" are jerks, but I'd rather keep my OHIP card thank you very much. I'm glad that the literal socialists from the NDP helped make this thing a reality.

Also, decimon, I work for "the government". If it means we can't be friends, well... okay then.

 

Stanislav, your fatally flawed misunderstanding is your incorrect belief that the United States is a democracy. It is not. The United States is a Republic. This is the second time you have been told that. It will now be broken down for you at an elementary level to induce greater comprehension.

Here is the pledge to the Republic of the United States:

​

Stanislav, even though you are half Russian, please place your right hand above your heart and please pledge your audible allegiance to the Republic of the United States.