"There has never been true communism."

[Age]

Why do you want to, so call, "tussle" with that 'one', ONLY? Why not with 'me'?

Because I'm annoying, but you are needy and annoying.

What, EXACTLY, are you referring to when you use the word 'needy' here?

Hopefully the irony here is NOT lost.

Anyway, if by 'needy' you mean that I 'need' people to show and reveal what they actually have, which, supposedly, backs up and supports their claims and what they say, and/or I 'need' people to clarify what they actually mean, in what they say, then that is PERFECTLY FINE with me. If people just can NOT back up and support their claims and what they say and/or can NOT clarify what they actually mean, in what they say, then so be it. But, if you meant some thing different, then what did you mean by your use of the word 'needy' here?

[Age]

simply an extension of what is [a] fact: a man belongs to himself; a man has a right to his life, liberty, and property

that there is the first two of three articles, yeah

Again, you are going on about some "articles". What are these "articles" in relation to, exactly?

Also, WHY do you bold what "others" write, as though you are quoting them, but you change what was actually said and written, like you have done just here?

Also, once again WHY the gender specificity?

it's just a habit: substitute person if you like

But if I did, then it would make far less sense than it does now.

Why not with 'me'?

cuz you're hard work

take this line of yours...

By the way, what a 'natural right libertarian minarchy' IS, exactly, to you, only you KNOW. So, if you do NOT express 'that' in the EXACT way that you KNOW 'it', then me nor ANY "other" will ever have a clue what a 'natural right libertarian minarchy' IS, from YOUR PERSPECTIVE.

...what's with all the CAPS?

To emphasize some words.

So, that when I am explaining WHY I write what I do, in the exact way that I do do it, which triggers "others" to respond in the ways they do, then I have thee ACTUAL EVIDENCE and PROOF ALREADY, which backs up and supports what I have been saying, and claiming.

Also, how does writing just SOME words in CAPS make me, supposedly, "hard work".

You write SOME words shortened, but it would be ridiculous to then make the claim that this makes 'you', the one known as "henry quirk", "hard work".

and why not just say: I don't understand what you mean by a natural rights libertarian minarchy, Henry. Explain it to me.

What is the difference between writing what you just did here or writing; What does 'a natural rights libertarian minarchy' mean, to you, besides what I wrote is six words shorter than yours?

Are you suggesting the reason you do NOT answer my very simple clarifying questions is because I do NOT first state the fact that;
I do not understand what you mean by ... [such and such] "henry"?

Also, do you have to use the words; "Explain it to me", BEFORE you will answer my actual clarifying questions?

no, It's always a decipherin' job with your posts

If, and WHEN, people go through my writings, then they will SEE that I am the one who has asked the MOST, and the MOST SIMPLEST, clarifying questions out of ANY one here.

What I am doing is; INSTEAD of 'deciphering' what "others" say, to understand them better in what they actually mean, I just ask them, politely and in very SIMPLE terms, to just CLARIFY what they mean.

Have you EVER considered to just ask me SOME CLARIFYING QUESTIONS, INSTEAD of 'trying to' DECIPHER on YOUR OWN?

I have been writing, the way I do, for as long as I have here, to SHOW and REVEAL just how much human beings, back in the days of when this is being written, actually do NOT just do the most SIMPLEST and EASIEST task of just asking for CLARIFICATION, but INSTEAD will continually ASSUME, and even BELIEVE, that they KNOW what the "other" is saying, and actually meaning. And that they will continually keep doing this no matter how many times they are told that what they are ASSUMING, IS completely and utterly WRONG.

I ain't got the will for it, not over the long-haul

Okay, fair enough.

I then suggest doing some thing else other than 'DECIPHERING', like; just asking me SOME CLARIFYING QUESTIONS.

But Honestly one has to be Truly interested and curious in the "other", and in understanding what thee "other" actually means in what they say, BEFORE they could and would ask SOME CLARIFYING QUESTIONS to thee "other".

By the way, I am still HERE, alive and well, so I am able to answer ANY and ALL clarifying question, which you may pose to me. So, there is absolutely NO need at all for you to 'decipher' absolutely ANY thing in regards to what I say and/or write.

After all it is NOT like you are reading some thing, which I wrote previously, and that I am NOT around any more for you to CLARIFY with me.

If it was the case that I was NOT around any more, then you would HAVE TO 'decipher' my writings. But, OBVIOUSLY, this is NOT the case. So, once again, you do NOT 'have to' 'decipher' ANY thing I say or write.

[Age]

age, I appreciate your enthusiasm, but I ain't debatin' you

I'll tussle with flash: you, you're too much work

Thanks for being Honest.

I'm always honest with folks who are honest with me...I see you as honest (and too much work...sorry)

You NEVER have to apologize NOR be 'sorry' for the REAL and TRUE emotions and thoughts, within that body.

Absolutely EVERY thought and emotion, which arises in EVERY body, is PERFECTLY ACCEPTABLE. So, there is NO need AT ALL to apologize NOR be sorry for ANY of them. The very reason WHY EVERY thought AND emotion arises in EVERY body is PERFECTLY UNDERSTANDABLE, to me. So, one NEVER needs to be sorry NOR apologetic, well to me anyway.

If being "too much work' is the way that is felt and thought about me, then that is perfectly understandable, acceptable, AND fine with me.

[FlashDangerpants]

Marxism is a social, political, and economic philosophy named after Karl Marx, which examines the effect of capitalism on labor, productivity, and economic development and argues for a worker revolution to overturn capitalism in favor of communism. Marxism posits that the struggle between social classes, specifically between the bourgeoisie, or capitalists, and the proletariat, or workers, defines economic relations in a capitalist economy and will inevitably lead to revolutionary communism.

Then the only thing I would add that is relevant to a philosophy type of conversation is the point that it is claimed to be a scientific prediction and taken from a scientific analysis of history, written in the days when Hegel was still the big thing. As far as I am concerned, the original Marxist theory is the only one that is relevant if the question of whether or not it has actually happened is being addressed. Marxism predicts that communism is the creation of capitalism, not the creation of the revolution that simply ushers it into the world. Thus if Investopedia's defintion is read clumsily (or was written clumsily) it could be taken to be advocating for such revolution when it was intended to be understood that the revolution would come at its own time, not a chosen one.

I see no definition: only a half-assed history lesson

please, for the last time: define communism

I guess any social organisation in which all land and sources of employment are held collectively rather than privately is fundamentally communist. And in place of your minarchist creed about man owning himself would be the commie one of from each according to his ability, to each according to his need. And a flat socio-economic hiearchy with zero class stratification is a must. Everything beyond that is optional.

With communism it's easy to spot a failed experiment (if we can call nation an experiment) ... all you need to witness is the perpetuation of any ruling class and the game is up. The point and purpose of communism is to remove classes, thus any emergence of classes, both upper and under, is inherent failure.

A night-watchman state or minarchy is a model of a state that is limited and minimal, whose only functions are to act as an enforcer of the non-aggression principle by providing its citizens with the military, the police and courts, thereby protecting them from aggression, theft, breach of contract, fraud and enforcing property laws. Its proponents are called minarchists.

finally, sumthin' I can sink my teeth into...you coulda just pulled this up hours ago and saved us both a lotta back & forth

anyway: the wiki definition is fine as far as it goes but it really doesn't stand as a definition for a natural rights libertarian minarchy

will you be on tomorrow? I've had myself day, both on-line and off...I'm tuckered and bed bound before too long

anyway: I'll post my own definition tomorrow (along with one for communism [I'll even mark the distinction between true and state, to make age happy] after you post yours)

I'll look forward to it.

[FlashDangerpants]

Why do you want to, so call, "tussle" with that 'one', ONLY? Why not with 'me'?

Because I'm annoying, but you are needy and annoying.

What, EXACTLY, are you referring to when you use the word 'needy' here?

Hopefully the irony here is NOT lost.

Anyway, if by 'needy' you mean that I 'need' people to show and reveal what they actually have, which, supposedly, backs up and supports their claims and what they say, and/or I 'need' people to clarify what they actually mean, in what they say, then that is PERFECTLY FINE with me. If people just can NOT back up and support their claims and what they say and/or can NOT clarify what they actually mean, in what they say, then so be it. But, if you meant some thing different, then what did you mean by your use of the word 'needy' here?

What I mean is that the topic of any conversation you enter into is largely irrelevant. You are one of several people on this forum who will go into these things and imediately make it all about the thing you always talk about in any conversation at all. Mostly that seems to be the "clarifying questions" which you constantly demand of us all.

Basically, you are needy because you make every conversation about you.

[henry quirk]

If being "too much work' is the way that is felt and thought about me, then that is perfectly understandable, acceptable, AND fine with me.

good...I'm glad you understand...now, I'm gonna put you on ignore for little bit...I wanna focus of the back & forth between me and flash, and that's difficult enough to do on this ipad mini without havin' to wade through your posts too...once flash & me are done, I'll restore you then -- if I can muster the will -- address any questions you have

[henry quirk]

I guess any social organisation in which all land and sources of employment are held collectively rather than privately is fundamentally communist. And in place of your minarchist creed about man owning himself would be the commie one of from each according to his ability, to each according to his need. And a flat socio-economic hiearchy with zero class stratification is a must. Everything beyond that is optional.

very good...it's not a particularly *deep definition (in the same way the wiki definition of minarchy wasn't deep), but it's a start...I'll stipulate that I agree with your definition of communism

on to my minarchy...

the natural rights libertarian minarchy is informed by three notions (the articles I mention up-thread)...I've written about these before...they offer a philosophical underpinning to the particular minarchy I favor, supported by what seems to be man's natural psychological bent (personally, I think it goes deeper than psychology, but I'll leave my religion, and what I believe to be moral fact, out of this discussion)

a man belongs to himself

a man has a right to his life, liberty, and property

a man's life, liberty, or property are only forfeit, in part or whole, when he knowingly, willingly, without just cause, deprives another, in part or whole, of life, liberty, or property

these three derive from my own intuitions about man's nature, supported by the thoughts of locke, reid, and others

minarchy extends out from these three...any rule or regulation or law adopted by the minarchists extends out from these three

typically, minarchist thinkin' sez a minarchy requires three proxies (local peacekeeping, local arbitration, and national peacekeeping)...I accept these but interpret them as...

a local, minimal, constabulary

a local, minimal, court of last resort

a minimal armed border patrol

the militia

now, rather than fritter myself away answerin' questions, or adressin' criticisms, that haven't been issued, I'll simply wait and watch for your posts

now, I'm goin' do some yardwork...






*by deep I mean the philosophical & psychological underpinnings; the why undergirding a communism or a minarchy...we'll address these as we go (now is the time to trot out marx & engels, I guess)

[FlashDangerpants]

typically, minarchist thinkin' sez a minarchy requires three proxies (local peacekeeping, local arbitration, and national peacekeeping)...I accept these but interpret them as...

a local, minimal, constabulary

a local, minimal, court of last resort

a minimal armed border patrol

the militia

Ok. So I guess the question of this thread is whether there has ever been such a state of affairs anywhere, and if not, then perhaps why? Or if there has, then why did it end and what are the lessons of that end?

It seems to me that if we create a society with very few centres of power or authority, what comes next, if history is any guide, is that various interests make good and sure they gain control of those few insitutions.

[Scott Mayers]

There was once true communism.

And, there still might be.

no, there never was, and there never will be

If this is what you BELIEVE is true, then this MUST BE true, to you.

And, if this MUST BE true, to you, then you are OBVIOUSLY NOT open at all in order to be able to learn and understand what thee actual Truth IS.

Age, the "Communist" label is an ideal and why they label their main platform as a party. It might be something like how some party might label their system, "Christian" or "Zionist", as ideal states but in practice requires an evolving system that aims to get to the ideal.

"Communism" as a label opposes, "Capitalism" with respect to OWNERSHIP. While we are generally 'capitalistic' in the Western countries, we practice forms of 'social' governments that vary broadly in what they are more specifically.


Sample "communism" are the literal communes and isolated groups, like the Amish, who exist even within Capitalist societies. So these may be considered 'real' but outside of what I assume is meant to refer to whole countries by the OP.

[henry quirk]

Ok. So I guess the question of this thread is whether there has ever been such a state of affairs anywhere, and if not, then perhaps why? Or if there has, then why did it end and what are the lessons of that end?

with communism: surrep & me have pled our case...communism doesn't work, can't work, simply cuz it requires men to have instincts and impulses that we don't have naturally, and because those impulses and instincts are alien to us, any attempt to make communism happen is adulterated from the start, with one set of folks forcin' another set of folks to act against self-interest

what surrep and me didn't say (and surrep may not agree with me here) is that the folks who try to enact communism know damn well it can't work, know damn well it'll be adulterated, and that's the point: they're the politiburo and everyone else is littie people

your argument (or marx's) is that capitalism has to wither first (presumably all over the globe, simultaneously) before communism can flourish...capitalism is a durable thing...it ain't ever goin' away...so: if you (marx) are right: I ain't got no worries (of course, even if marx is right, that doesn't stop dupes, sympathizers, card-carriers, and those who know the truth from tryin' to grind my sweet, sweet soul into sugary powder to sprinkle on the party approved breakfast cereal)


with minarchy: it doesn't exist formally cuz it's proponents (like me) aren't salesmen, tend toward self-reliance, aren't inclined to get political about it, and tend to live as minarchists anyway (quietly doin' as each sees fit and generally keepin' mum about all of it)...couple the minarchist's indifference and idiosyncrasy with a general ignorance & apathy amongst the population about anything fallin' outside of established parties and what you get is no minarchy

now, let's say I were to get preachy-like, makin' a big to-do about the virtues of a natural rights libertarian minarchy, and let's say I was able to move a significant number of folks (significant meaning repubs and dems on all levels noticed), the push back would be enormous...a political/economic/philosophical movement that disempowers us, and empowers the citizenry? the actual recognition of inviolate natural rights? our sheep would become wolves! and we'd be dinner! they'd say

the cause, however, is not lost: look to the march of things...over the past 200,000 years man has moved from cowering at the moon to submittin' to god-kings to an uneven, inconsistent, recognition of the individual as sumthin' other than a resource for his betters...the march, meanderin & back-tracky, seems to be in the direction of sumthin' like minarchy (though perhaps not my brand)


It seems to me that if we create a society with very few centres of power or authority, what comes next, if history is any guide, is that various interests make good and sure they gain control of those few insitutions.

seems to me: a self-reliant, self-directing, people are not so easily hoodwinked...after all, a self-reliant, self-directed, people is exactly what a natural rights libertarian minarchy is (and a self-reliant, self-directing, people is exactly, it seems to me, what the powers that be work damn hard to retard)

[henry quirk]

Sample "communism" are the literal communes and isolated groups, like the Amish, who exist even within Capitalist societies. So these may be considered 'real' but outside of what I assume is meant to refer to whole countries by the OP.

thing about the amish: they get pissy and ostracize folks, but they never lock 'em up or line 'em up against the wall

kids, for example, who reject amish ways may never be welcome again (without bein' deeply contrite about it) but they can leave

a natural rights libertarian minarchy can tolerate the amish, or even a legit, marx is tops, communism, as long as the three articles are abided, as long as folks who change their minds can pick up and leave

[FlashDangerpants]

the cause, however, is not lost: look to the march of things...over the past 200,000 years man has moved from cowering at the moon to submittin' to god-kings to an uneven, inconsistent, recognition of the individual as sumthin' other than a resource for his betters...the march, meanderin & back-tracky, seems to be in the direction of sumthin' like minarchy (though perhaps not my brand)

More concise than Marx, but yeah, that's the basics of his spiel too, especially the bit about meanderin & back-tracking.

[henry quirk]

the cause, however, is not lost: look to the march of things...over the past 200,000 years man has moved from cowering at the moon to submittin' to god-kings to an uneven, inconsistent, recognition of the individual as sumthin' other than a resource for his betters...the march, meanderin & back-tracky, seems to be in the direction of sumthin' like minarchy (though perhaps not my brand)

More concise than Marx, but yeah, that's the basics of his spiel too, especially the bit about meanderin & back-tracking.

the difference, of course, bein' I describe the march from slavery to freedom while marx describes the march from freedom to slavery (not that he would see it that way)

[Nick_A]

Why?

Communism is only possible under the leadership of philosopher kings. They don't exist so we are better off as a free people.









the answer is obvious

[vegetariantaxidermy]

There was once true communism.

And, there still might be.

no, there never was, and there never will be

Exactly.