Maybe I’ll pick this book up. Thanks for finding out that Amazon has it. It will be a couple months before I end up reading it, but maybe it wouldn’t be a bad idea to have it, discover how difficult such a college introductory work might be, and my son will benefit from having what I assume is a concise, general writing on logic around. I definitely would like to read such a book too due to it’s summarizing of logic into one book for a good foundational perspective of the various aspects of logic that has come about through the centuries. It’s probably not out-dated seeing that logic doesn’t seem to be something that changes in insight that much at all.
Found another douche who is not disputing that the USSR was marx/communist (although I suspect as usual the definition of communism is not consistent here either), so now I’m a little more interested in looking into this marxist rubbish. I’m gonna try pitting this self-claimed “communist” against the other self-claimed “communist” to see what happens, just for fun.
One says the USSR was communist, the other says it wasn’t. It’s funny, the one guy is using a name “Comrade Stalin” and the other “Frederick Engles”…ugh. Yeah this should be intersting. lol..
Comrade Stalin - The Communist who says it was Communist
Engles - The Communist who says it wasn’t Communist
By the by, if you are going to be talking to Marxists for a good deal of time, I suggest getting Sir Alexander Gray’s work The Socialist Tradition. A very witty critique of Socialists through the ages.
Might I also suggest you use this quote on the ‘Engles’ user:
‘Anti-Duhring is for the most part a most dreadful work-- fit only to be one of six books given to Hitler on a desert island’ - Sir Alexander Gray
If the guy has more wealth than you, then try this. Enter into a communist relationship with him, and then begin to appropriate his and your wealth into the community pile, then tell him you are going to get a guy off the street to distribute the wealth equally. See, how long it takes before the guy asks for his share of the loot.
I wish I knew some guys I could do this too. Stop before a contract is made. The state will back him up in court if you enter into a binding agreement, this means you will be left with a bunch of crap you never wanted. If he doesn’t see the absurdity of the doctrine by then I don’t know what to tell you.
Communists bickering over who did best (or worst) to establish it reminds me of capitalists bickering over who did it best or worst. Many Liberty freedom fighters on this forum would happen to think that capitalism has never truly been free of statist nazism. So I guess that puts anarcho-capitalists and “real” communists on the same page.
I’m referring to bickering communists seeking a purity in “real” communism versus bickering capitalists seeking a purity in “real” capitalism. The unchecked double standard is ironic.
Monasteries, families. But even these collectives are living off the proceeds of the collective’s property as distinct from the rest of the world’s, and they are also engaged in voluntary exchange. Monasteries host pilgrims, conduct worship services in exchange for donations, and sell relics, icons, etc.. Internally, an otherwise capable monk has to give his or her labor to earn a place at the common table. So I don’t know how accurate that characterization is. Same sort of thing with families.
The more I think about it, the more it seems communism is just a crackpot idea, while socialism proceeds from the superficially appealing though incorrect premise that a wise, benevolent central authority can efficiently allocate resources.
Communism does not exist unless the necessary material captivity exists for it to be implemented. Marx Communism “required” the darwinian man, the tribal collective man, the feudal man, and the capitalist man in order to achieve the socialist man, and then the communist man.
Socialism in the 21st century is going to have a markedly different character in post industrialized states. I can see, for example, that the correct perception of inherent weakness and lack of faith in government by both the right and the left has already lead to the creation of such organizations as Acorn and Blackwater. People are more quickly hedging their bets on Wall Street, NGOs and other investments in order to create social privilege and social orders. In fact, I see the monarchian confederates of Von Mises as a potential bridge to establishing an egalitarian order in the 21st century.
Marx could’ve been correct in his time, but I doubt a current Marx would advocate the overthrow of stable governments engaged in monopoly capitalism and welfare. Instead, a new centralized takeover must happen on the terms that a centralized blackwater is allowed to happen.
Acorn and Blackwater are both fascist agencies. They are the private arms of the social state. They have not been created by “the people”. They have been created by special interest groups looking to profit from affiliation with the state, without the limitations of democracy.
Hunh?
Let’s hope you’re wrong. Egalitarianism can only be established with violence.
I tend to agree. Though the ethos of a family is to each according to his needs, there is reciprocal exchange. I care for my infant so the infant can care for me later, instinct to maintain my genetic line, pleasure at infant’s affection, etc.
So yeah, I think communism is just pie-in-the-sky, like Shangri-La or the Big Rock Candy Mountain. It is impossible in a world of scarcity and subjective value.
Really? Even communism has a system of property rights. It merely differs from libertarianism.
[ Under Communism the right of property are communalized while under libertarianism they are privatized.]
I think what you meant to say is that private property rights are established through violence to which my reply would be that is absurd. Using lockean homesteading theory, property is established by whoever takes from the commons and mixes their labor with it. I don’t see anything violent about that but perhaps you can point out what is. And if we are to define capitalism as ‘free trade, free buying & selling’ then what is violent about voluntary exchange?