Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

A treatise on communism

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • A treatise on communism

    http://thefederalist.com/2017/11/07/...communism-die/

    An intellectual view of communism and what it really produces, contrary to idealistic theories of communism. poverty, oppression, war, and mass death, not Utopia.

    There have been studies on line which show the young folks are fooled by Commie theory and actually think it's a good idea. Yet, communism has never worked on a large scale, and even small agricultural communes of the 60's in the USA didn't usually work well for long.

  • #2
    Originally posted by polite_disagreement View Post
    ... is not to be had from an Ayn Rand meatpuppet.

    M

    Comment


    • #3
      I didn't understand that, M, but assume it was a personal insult. Which means this is time to tell you something I have thought for a long time.

      More than half of your postings on AVFM are brilliant, well thought out, and even at times very wise. Less than half induce a sharp pain in the exact center of my chair. Assuming that comment was a deliberate, childish insult, this one would be in the latter category. As often is the case, some of the hypothetically best posters on boards render their work as silly by such childish outbursts.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by polite_disagreement View Post
        I didn't understand that, M, but assume it was a personal insult.
        That saddens me. I hope to be able to show you that it was not directed at you personally.

        I have the bad habit of actually opening and reading links and stuff that people post for others to read
        (ok, I drew a line after the 12th two-hour Molyneux video).
        I also try to get a handle on who is writing.
        In this case, I read the article; and it will come as no surprise to you that I do not agree with it.
        The author of the article quoted Ayn Rand, which always makes me curious; in this case: How deep was the connection?
        And reading up on the author's bio, it turns out that he has come up through the Objectivist organization, the Ayn Rand Institute (I may misquote here, from memory) etc.
        IOW, this writer is a dyed-in-the-wool Randian.
        The problem I have with Rand and Randians is not their opinions. Let people think what they will.
        I have yet to find any convincing argument to come from that camp. It is only convincing if you have already accepted the basic tenets of Rand's teachings, and to me, they are too full of errors to accept uncritically. And yes, I've read Rand. So I feel free to disagree.
        But diagreeing with Rand makes you a morally bad person in the eyes of the Randians. Most Randians have adopted Rand's own habit of speaking as if she was the sole owner of the original Truth Mine, and that the world owed her obedience as soon as she spoke. Her epigones think the world owes them obedience as soon as they quote Rand. This is not thinking, this is applying dogma as a stencil where you snip of the parts of reality that don't fit; yet they still think they are both intellectually as well as morally superior for stuffing reality into the oh, so narrow Procrustean Beds that are their minds.

        So ... I expressed my doubt that this author was capable of an informed view of communism.
        And I called him a Rand meatpuppet, i.e. a living fingerpuppet for Randian dogma speak.

        So that which was, I hope, a crushing insult, was not directed at you, but at the article author.

        I used that to express that I disagree that the views presented could be taken as an informed view.
        In retrospect, I can see that this does not necessarily cast tons of glory on you; but I actually wrote it so to _not_ make it about you.
        If I failed in that, I'm sorry, I'm sad that you felt insulted, and I apologize for all of that.

        More than half of your postings on AVFM are brilliant, well thought out, and even at times very wise.
        Argh, now you're raking coals ... In revenge I must say that I read all of your posts, because I really like your real life stories.
        Anyway, thank you for these very handsome compliments.
        I've never had anyone call me wise berfore; I'll try to let it go to my head, and see if it rubs off. Who knows, one day it might be true.

        Less than half induce a sharp pain in the exact center of my chair.
        So, we disagree on one or two abstract technicalities ... Communism and Unwin ... neither problems we're likely to see the outcome of ...

        Assuming that comment was a deliberate, childish insult, this one would be in the latter category.
        As often is the case, some of the hypothetically best posters on boards render their work as silly by such childish outbursts.
        If it were, your judgement would be entirely correct. I hope to have shown that this was merely a misunderstanding.

        M
        Last edited by Manalysis; 11-09-2017, 02:41 PM.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Manalysis View Post
          In this case, I read the article; and it will come as no surprise to you that I do not agree with it.
          So, we disagree on one or two abstract technicalities ... Communism ...
          Let me just add that we could have a long debate about politics, but I thought that a protracted detailed polemic would just take up valuable forum space, and would not change any minds, either.

          The funny thing is that I've met all kinds of people with all kinds of views, and end up liking some people, despite disagreement, and disliking others, despite agreement.
          I suspect that shared values go deeper than labels and selv-applied pigeonholes.
          I'm sort of a lone voice in the desert here, but I suspect that stranded on an island, I could well build a hut with The Opposition, people like you, GOM, Maxx, Plummer and more, because I think our belief in justice and fairness, and our outlook on getting things done, etc. etc., would be eerily similar.
          I'd probably argue more with e.g. SST, but that's how leftists are

          M

          Comment

          Working...
          X