45 Goals of Communism...

Discussion in 'Too Hot for Swamp Gas' started by shelbygt350, Jun 17, 2014.

  1. shelbygt350
    Offline

    shelbygt350 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    5,679
    Likes Received:
    228
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +870
    Do you all get it or choose to ignore it?

    Private property rights have diminished greatly in the past 40 yr.

    Take Kelo case, the "taking" was not for a road, airport expansion, but for the development of Phizer's headquarters. That went to USSC and the private property owner, Mrs Kelo, lost. The USSC ruled that Phizer development was for a public purpose due to blight. A city or govt entity can declare any area blighted by simply claiming that new development is worth more! Huh? That is liberalism at an extreme. btw- look at the property today. Nice !

    Private property regarding govt agencies like Fla DEP and local agencies that degree who and what tree, shrub, waterway are to be protected. Ever deal w/ DEP on what is wetlands? It has gotten to where almost a puddle after a rain storm is a wetland. That is a loss of property rights.

    Any and all "loss of property rights" is either within or a nudge closer to Communism.

    For the uninformed: there are no property rights in pure communism. The state owns the property. We are not there yet, but we creep towards it a step at a time.

    Yes, all markets are controlled, just like to a degree you as an individual are "controlled" by police and laws (ie speed limits, drinking limits, zoning laws, etc). But the degree is the issue. I want laws that protect me and you.....thus I submit to legitimate authority to that "control" . But do you not agree that if you were incarcerated for no reason (jail !) that that "control" over you would be too extreme ?

    Seems like many are willing to give up liberty an inch at a time all in the interest of clinging to a political party.
    • Winner Winner x 1
  2. wgbgator
    Offline

    wgbgator Sub-optimal Poster Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2007
    Messages:
    23,885
    Likes Received:
    492
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Orlando, FL
    Ratings Received:
    +2,180
    I think property rights and private property have actually been expanding over the last 40 years, not shrinking. If anything, we're moving toward a society in which commonly or publicly held property is moving more and more into private hands, or being subjected to market forces, which is pretty much the opposite of creeping communism.
  3. shelbygt350
    Offline

    shelbygt350 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    5,679
    Likes Received:
    228
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +870
    wgbgator- what you offer is an opinion. Name specific cases. Counter Kelo etc.
  4. rivergator
    Offline

    rivergator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2007
    Messages:
    32,642
    Likes Received:
    454
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +2,374
    We've had the right to take private property for public use as long as we've been a country, I believe. What Kelo did was give the ability for compulsory transfer from private owner to private owner. That's hardly a characteristic of communism.
    But I notice you're ignoring the rest of your list and my responses. Can you point to some evidence that no one's allowed to read anti-abortion literature on a college campus?
  5. wgbgator
    Offline

    wgbgator Sub-optimal Poster Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2007
    Messages:
    23,885
    Likes Received:
    492
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Orlando, FL
    Ratings Received:
    +2,180
    Why do I need to counter Kelo? As you said, eminant domain was used not to expand publically held land, but to put it into privately held corporate hands. What does that have to do with communism, and how does that counter my opinion about the expansion of private property via government and coporate power?
  6. shelbygt350
    Offline

    shelbygt350 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    5,679
    Likes Received:
    228
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +870
    Neither one of you understand property rights....sorry if I sound offensive, but I have to be blunt.

    The Kelo case transferred property to govt entity to in turn do a public/private (Phizer) endeavor. The issue was the use of blighting....can blight anything.

    The property rights of Mrs Kelo, who had lived in the house for yr, meant nothing. She didnt want any $$$ she wanted to simply stay in her house. She lost the "right" to live there.

    Eminent domain was originally for public purpose, not public use. Public purpose was deemed as roads, highways, airports, schools and such.

    ED has now morphed and slid to public use which includes govt pet projects, like a Phizer development or sports field, etc.

    ED was also mentioned as a potential for the housing crash...homes foreclosed, ED them away from the lender.

    When the Govt has the right to take YOUR home for another individual or entity that is not for a road, airport etc...that is a giant loss of property rights.

    Another case was in Fla....school wanted house next to it. Owner did not want to sell. Sic the code enforcement on owner. Owner not financially able to comply with dozens of minuscule code violations, forced to move out and demo. The school brd goes eminent domain on value....of lot only. Owner loses house is paid only lot value. School brd lost eventually after years.

    County in Fla enacts "development ordinance" You want to build on your land. Ok, but dedicate (give) X feet of depth off main road frontage for future road....no compensation. Take by eminent domain without compensation for a road not even on the future plans to be widened. That is a loss in property rights.

    Owner of lot wants to build house. Cabbage palm in way. City deems cabbage palm cannot come down. Owner fights with city over right to remove a cabbage palm !

    You all may "feel" like you have same property rights as your forefathers but you dont.

    Inching to Communism....well if not inching to that...then what are you inching towards? Surely not Liberty ! There are two polar opposite ends of the spectrum....free property rights, totally, then the step to fee simple, then fee simple with some minor exceptions.....then all the way to the state owned.
  7. wgbgator
    Offline

    wgbgator Sub-optimal Poster Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2007
    Messages:
    23,885
    Likes Received:
    492
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Orlando, FL
    Ratings Received:
    +2,180
    Whatever you think of ED, at best you could argue that while Kelo may diminish your own property rights, its enhancing the property rights of other legal persons. To paraphrase Mitt Romney, corporations are people too my friend under US law. So, again, not inching toward communism, but perhaps inching toward a country where land is held by more powerful "persons" in the form of concentrated capital, aided by a government that is friendly to corporate interests since concentrated capital (i.e. money) is also deemed as "free speech" under current Constitutional thinking.
    Last edited: Jun 19, 2014
  8. shelbygt350
    Offline

    shelbygt350 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    5,679
    Likes Received:
    228
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +870
    Concentrated = more centralized.

    More centralized is a tenant of communism. Opposite of freedom and liberty. Think in terms of a line, east to west, which don't meet....one extreme to the other.

    Kelo (not Kelso, Kelso was a great horse decades back) case was all about property rights. It was all about the government taking private property OUTSIDE of the historically understood use of eminent domain.

    The taking authority in the Kelo case was the government. And the point was major: they were Not taking it for a road, a public park, a school, etc ...something for a public purpose.

    They took Kelo's and others to convey to Phizer....they took it under blighting.

    How would you like it if I got in cahoots with your county and decided to take your home and some of your neighbors because I could tear your house down and build one of higher value? I could under the guise of "blight" have Govt entity take your house without your consent, under eminent domain, then follow that up with payment that govt deems fair, then after taking it, govt demo it, give it to my development company that builds a better, higher valued , house on your former lot. You would be screaming.

    Taking of property , under the guise of eminent domain, but not for a public purpose is what Socialists and Communists and Statists, do. That is what Concentrated Power does. That is top down government.

    On the opposite side are those of Liberty, the original US Const intent, the original property rights understanding. That property would Not be taken unless it was for a public purpose. In fact, historically, the Govt when taking property had to Prove in court, if challenged, that there was a need (as in they had road plans, funding, immediate need) for the taking now. If not they did not get the private property.

    Libs and others can have an opinion that property rights are better, stronger, or have not changed, but the liberal courts, the government agencies (EPA, DEP, etc) have slowly, inch by inch, are taking property rights away from people.

    Too many court cases, too many people adversely affected (and unfairly compensated, if at all) by government prove the loss in rights.
  9. busigator96
    Offline

    busigator96 Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2007
    Messages:
    15,371
    Likes Received:
    352
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Gainesville, FL
    Ratings Received:
    +1,353
    Do we actually "own" anything beyond what some paper declaration (deed or title) gives us? I think the Native Americans were right many years ago; we borrow our land from our children. We don't own a damn thing....we are born with nothing and we die with nothing.
  10. wgbgator
    Offline

    wgbgator Sub-optimal Poster Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2007
    Messages:
    23,885
    Likes Received:
    492
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Orlando, FL
    Ratings Received:
    +2,180
    I don't see how concentrated capital is a tenet of communism. There is no "capital" in communism, only labor. Nor is just something being concentrated or "more centralized" specific to communism. Under that logic, by adopting the Constitution in place of the Articles of Confederation and forming a more centralized government, the adopters of the Constitution were enacting a tenet of communism. People aren't "losing" their rights, they are being superseded by the rights of other persons or entities, those with the resources and power to legally maximize their already massive advantages.
  11. rivergator
    Offline

    rivergator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2007
    Messages:
    32,642
    Likes Received:
    454
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +2,374
    I'm still waiting for him to explain how no one is allowed to read anti-abortion literature on a college campus.
  12. Gatorrick22
    Offline

    Gatorrick22 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    35,046
    Likes Received:
    2,841
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +6,036
    Lol... are you for real? That's how you'd compare the greatest system of governance (Capitalism) to hoodlum/murderers (Communists/Communism) that own everyone and everything?

    ...not at all the same thing!
  13. wgbgator
    Offline

    wgbgator Sub-optimal Poster Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2007
    Messages:
    23,885
    Likes Received:
    492
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Orlando, FL
    Ratings Received:
    +2,180
    I know in the game Civilization, one of the benefits of adopting communism was that it eliminated corruption, but in real life, communism is vulnerable to corruption, just like capitalism, because people.
  14. Wormwood56
    Offline

    Wormwood56 VIP Member

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2011
    Messages:
    7,509
    Likes Received:
    768
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    San Antonio, TX
    Ratings Received:
    +3,087

    They were right for their society, but western societies are based on Rules of Law, and according to those rules, a deed or title is a legitimate document for ownership. As such, one COULD own land or anything else.
  15. wgbgator
    Offline

    wgbgator Sub-optimal Poster Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2007
    Messages:
    23,885
    Likes Received:
    492
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Orlando, FL
    Ratings Received:
    +2,180
    A deed is just legal proof of ownership if dispute arises. I'd say the idea of owning something is based more on what you can do with the property rather than some piece of paper. Mastery = ownership. The more empowered you are to destroy or otherwise depreciate the property in question, the more you "own" it, at least in the Western conception of property rights, which are more than anything based on the opposite condition of slavery.
  16. lacuna
    Offline

    lacuna Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2007
    Messages:
    9,082
    Likes Received:
    380
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Gainesville
    Ratings Received:
    +864
    Laws and Rules will never be as tangible as land, what grows and stands upon it.
  17. Wormwood56
    Offline

    Wormwood56 VIP Member

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2011
    Messages:
    7,509
    Likes Received:
    768
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    San Antonio, TX
    Ratings Received:
    +3,087
    Communism is more than just vulnerable. Marx'w "dictatorship of the proletariat" never intended the actual proletariat to administer communism. Indeed, Marx's view in Kapital was that the objective was to build socialism until communism came into its own. IOW, to Marx, communism was what Nirvana was to Siddhartha Guatama, something to aspire to but extremely difficult to achieve.

    The problem with Marx's vision, however, was hampered by a profound lack of real-world experience. He never strayed froom the libraries of London to meet real proletariats, and as such, was contemptuous of them. Like many intellectuals, he fudged his theories of history to suit his agenda, conveniently ignoring the many exceptions to his Cardinal Rule that ALL of history is guided by the class struggle. The very essence of Marxism is rigid and cannot brook dissent, even from within. It has the tiniest tent imaginable; anything deviating from the Party Line is considered heresy, analagous to the Christian Church around the period of the Council of Nicea.

    Marx was one to exalt science as a paragon, but he had virtually no understanding of science, and likehistory, he would selectively use which scientific conclusion that best suited him. The Scientific Method horrified him, as it does Climate scientists today, because it has inflexible rules of verificatiojn that MUST be followed.

    Marx also bitterly denounced any form of organized religion, or the very idea that there is a Higher Authority by which to govern man's actions. Marx believed that Man was the pinnacle, and communism was Man's moral foundation.

    As such, the foundation for socialism was built on soft, shifting sand. Because he considered psychology a bourgeouis science, he never bothered to delve into the workings of human nature. He (and his acolytes Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Kim and the rest) considered the Western notion of democratic socialism to be nothing more than bourgeouis sentimentality, analagous to capitalism. Indeed,the Soviets hated the British Labor party FAR more than they did the openly Capitalist Tories.

    So they established their unique forms of Socialism, placing themselves as the Highest Authority while sifting through historical and scientific maxims to select those that coincide with their plans. When the plans failed to work and the masses revolted, they enforced the Plan - with millions of murders.
  18. wgbgator
    Offline

    wgbgator Sub-optimal Poster Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2007
    Messages:
    23,885
    Likes Received:
    492
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Orlando, FL
    Ratings Received:
    +2,180
    Das Kapital doesnt really discuss communism or socialism, it discusses the nature of capitalism, capital accumulation, and the transformation of labor. Whatever Marx's lack of "real world experience" I'm sure he read Engel's The Conditions of the Working Class in England, probably even vistited Engel's factory in Manchester, where he also lived. There's really no one who had a greater understanding of industrial capitalism in the mid 19th century than Marx, whatever you may think of the idea of communism.
  19. Wormwood56
    Offline

    Wormwood56 VIP Member

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2011
    Messages:
    7,509
    Likes Received:
    768
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    San Antonio, TX
    Ratings Received:
    +3,087
    Throughout the first volume, Marx discusses the evil of Capitalism (with errors and holes large enough to steer an aircraft carrier through) with obvious solutions, even though he didn't mention them by name. The second and third volumes were written by Engels, who used Marx's voluminous notes.

    Marx never once set foot in Engels' factory. Indeed, Engels was Marx's benefactor, as Marx refused to get a job (had to pawn his own clothes many times). The only proletariat he ever knew was the housekeeper given to him by his wife's parents, whom he never paid, but fathered a son with her, who he denied ever knnowing. Unlike Orwell and others who actually made an attempt to understand the proletariat from THEIR perspective, he never bothered. He simply stole ideas from Hegel and a dozen other philosophers from the Rosseau tree and incorporated them into his own half-baked ideas that could not stand the test of scrutiny.
    • Like Like x 1
  20. wgbgator
    Offline

    wgbgator Sub-optimal Poster Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2007
    Messages:
    23,885
    Likes Received:
    492
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Orlando, FL
    Ratings Received:
    +2,180
    I wish Das Kapital were like that. Its rather dry, dense and more interested in arguing the contradictions of capital (like commodities & use value/exchange value or the unity of production and realization) than declaring it "evil." But I'm sure you've read it in depth and could easily point out the "errors and holes large enough to steer an aircraft carrier through" that should have been immediatly obvious to someone alive in 1860.

Share This Page