He has unshakeable commitment to floating abstractions, including "the working class", and he, like other Statists (Socialists, Fascists, and Theocrats) regard a group or a floating abstraction ("The People", "The Proletariat"; "Society as a Whole"; "The Common Good"; "The State"; "One Nation"; "God", etc.) they regard them, NOT an individual human being, as a primary unit in a society. That is the fundamental basis for their denial of legitimate individual rights.
I was struggling to articulate precisely what I found so irritating about they way he argues and you've pretty much nailed it. I would add that the one concept he discusses that actually does come close to being a 'floating abstraction' - is 'money in bank accounts', which he seems to think of as a concrete, material thing with a fixed value that will survive his revolution. Which is to get things completely arse about tit as my grandmother would say.
Peter (and all who visit) - You do understand that we have no private property rights even in America? We pretend we do but in reality we don't and haven't in a very long time. The first property taxes started within just 1 generation after the formation of America. We "pretend' we have private property because we can posses something that other citizens can;t legally take but the government can take it and w/o the just compensation required by the Takings Clause in the 5th amendment.
What is a private property right as envisioned during the days of the creation of our Constitution? The Fifth Amendment's Takings Clause states that private property cannot be taken for public use without just compensation. This clause is intended to prevent the government from forcing individuals to bear excessive burdens for the public good and yet what happened within just 1 generation? States begin eating away at this in small incremental steps starting with the taxation of livestock mainly while a few states also taxed land. Eventually this spread b/c what politician doesn't like more tax money coming to buy more votes? We went to war with Britain over a %2 tax and yet today you pay more than that in sales tax.
Regardless if one believes it's just or not, as long as we have property taxation we don't have true property rights because the government can take it, without just compensation, if you neglect to pay that annual eternal rent to the government. There are a number of way to funds the costs of local services like education without property taxation. The only reason for keeping it in place is that like with the income tax it allows the government to invade your privacy. There is no excuse as to why as of today, local governments can't simply come up with a budget and divide that cost up amongst all applicable citizens and bill them like any private service provider does and if they don't pay then you place a lien in the property just like a private party has to. Local bureaucrats don't want this changed because it's easier to obscure the corruption they are engaged in with property taxes and in some of teh worst locales, the local bureaucrats use it to effectively steal peoples homes to make money. They will take someone's home who owes a few thousand dollars, sell it to a friend or family member (or even a developer) for pennies on the dollar and then said family/friend provides them with a kikcback from the money the made. yes it is that bad in some places.
Just as with the income tax, the property tax was marketed to the masses as being something that would be primarily the burden of the wealthy and of course we all know that was a lie. Not only do the truly wealthy find ways to avoid income taxes (i.e. being compensated not with a salary or bonus but with stocks ) but they have the money to pay the expensive tax lawyers to minimize how much they pay in property taxes. To be clear I don't blame them for doing this as I would do it if I could because teh government is excessive and abusive with it's taxation and it needs to come to an end. Income tax needs to be replaced with a sales tax and property taxes need to be replaced with direct billing of services.
What is happening now is that it's been discovered that there is widespread fraud with property taxes on the part of the government, specifically the tax accessors. It's been found that what's being going on is that government entities like the education departments are telling tax accessors how much needs to be raised and the accessors are fudging the valuations to increase teh taxes enough to cover that budget. There is a huge lawsuit in Denton TX over this.
There is no need to ask the question of should we get rid of private property rights since we don't have them to begin with. What we have is the illusion of ownership and this is new. It wasn't to many generations back that when you owned property it was yours and you passed it down without fear of your own governance taking it instead or forcing you pay a sin tax to the government for owning such property.
It kind of reminds me of the concept of a nudist commune. There are details you just don't want to know, you don't want to live with 3 families to a house and btw, communism has failed over and over. A visit might be interesting but blistering sunburn is the risk. Watch the original Dr. Zhivago, the one with Julie Christie and Omar Shariff, directed by David Lean. Boris Pasternak, the writer who had his prize winning novel smuggled samizdat (piece by piece in the linings of suitcases) from Russia to the original Italian publisher, told the real story of the people during and after a "people's revolution." For a window into the woke "Komintern" look up "Trans Journalists' Association Style Guide" webpage, where "experts" declare that traumatized ex-wives, children of or parents of narcissists living in a delusion are never to have their side of the story told.
I know a few VERY wealthy people. They usually work insane hours and provide jobs to hundreds of people. Not to mention the buildings on campuses named after them for the millions donated.
I watched it to the end. You didn't miss much. He mainly just repeated the same stale slogans, phrases, and floating abstractions that his fellow communists typically utter. He's merely one of millions of Lenin's modern useful idiots.
It’s all been tried over and over. The Greeks 2500 years ago realized that a naked pure democracy resulted in tyranny and discrimination. The first thing this kid would do is remove your 1st and 2nd amendment rights, followed quickly by the rest of them.
That the current generation is less stable and well off than previous generations, is less likely to afford to get on the property ladder, and that corporate profits seem to them to be the sole reason for their lack of financial stability and success as a generation. When you have generations feeling disempowered financially, as well as seeing the corruption in both political parties at the top, they are ripe for being brainwashed into believing that our current system is wrong and can’t be fixed, and must be broken and replaced by this ‘utopian’ other system called communism. They’re told that this other system is one of equality and fairness, and where greed won’t happen. It’s all delusion, but it’s because they’re not educated and they’re also disillusioned with the current state of society.
Well at least you managed to find someone who was willing to talk to you. He seems to actually believe in his ideas that he put forward. I might not agree with him but I applaud his willingness to speak about it.
True. This is FAR more difficult than it seems. It could be because we were discussing economic and not identity concerns. In spite of our disagreement, he was a very nice, personable young man.
He certainly came across that way. You’re probably right that the abstract nature of the economic discussions, it was easier. You didn’t necessarily get into individual personal stories. Even without the identity aspect, you can cause problems if they tell you a personal story and don’t react the “correct” way.
I realize this will be read as "Hi! Idiot here," but I was a real communist for many years and argued much as this young man does--in fact, I must concede he is more articulate than I was. I appreciate your airing this as I'm still working out where the doctrine runs into fallacy and fantasy, where there may be some truth. For that reason, I only wish I'd heard more in response from you.
I try to let participants speak as much as possible. Viewers rarely want to hear what I have to say but only then in response to someone who disagrees. I also think I gave him ample time to respond and was very respectful.
You were exceedingly respectful, and this is exactly what I appreciate about you. My comment isn't meant as a criticism, but an admission that, although I've left the Marxist movement, I don't know how to respond to many of that young communist's arguments. And I suspect I'm not alone. I've learned a lot from your pedagogy, and would welcome any future dive into Marxism.
The Tories who had earned their private property by means of voluntary trade had every right to keep all of it, as the colonists had to keep all of their property that they earned the same way, and not have Washington expropriate it from them, as he did from whiskey distillers. If the Tories had property that they had received from King George III, that property was stolen by the king and distributed to his employees and civilian supporters. That property should have been returned to their rightful owners.
Peter should have asked the communists by what physical means would he and his comrades expropriate that private property, and how would they deal with private property owners who refused to comply with communists' demands to hand it over? If this communist is consistent in his commitment to his political philosophy, he would have to answer, "by physical force, and if they resist, we would kill them."
Communism, like the other expressions of Statism: Socialism, Fascism, and Theocracy, deny legitimate individual rights, especially private property rights, and support and practice the initiation of physical force up to and including the commission of murder to achieve its ends: dictatorship and slavery.
Peter should have asked the communists by what physical means would he and his comrades expropriate that private property, and how would they deal with private property owners who refused to comply with communists' demands to hand it over?
I spent 40+ years on the Factory Floor. Try a dead run in 120 degree heat making Bolts, 12 0n 12 off 12 day on 2 days off making Urethane calk, Then come talk to me.
Do you seriously think that you would have been hired to perform that work if there were not enough market demand for urethane calk that made it worthwhile (i.e., profitable) to produce?
Communists worship the physicality of physical labor, and not at all the thinking that guides that labor. Their Labor Theory of Value regards physical labor as having intrinsic value completely independent of and inherently superior to the market (i.e., individual consumer-determined) value of the product of labor.
He has unshakable faith in the power of “the working class” to vote for the right thing.
He has unshakeable commitment to floating abstractions, including "the working class", and he, like other Statists (Socialists, Fascists, and Theocrats) regard a group or a floating abstraction ("The People", "The Proletariat"; "Society as a Whole"; "The Common Good"; "The State"; "One Nation"; "God", etc.) they regard them, NOT an individual human being, as a primary unit in a society. That is the fundamental basis for their denial of legitimate individual rights.
I was struggling to articulate precisely what I found so irritating about they way he argues and you've pretty much nailed it. I would add that the one concept he discusses that actually does come close to being a 'floating abstraction' - is 'money in bank accounts', which he seems to think of as a concrete, material thing with a fixed value that will survive his revolution. Which is to get things completely arse about tit as my grandmother would say.
Peter (and all who visit) - You do understand that we have no private property rights even in America? We pretend we do but in reality we don't and haven't in a very long time. The first property taxes started within just 1 generation after the formation of America. We "pretend' we have private property because we can posses something that other citizens can;t legally take but the government can take it and w/o the just compensation required by the Takings Clause in the 5th amendment.
What is a private property right as envisioned during the days of the creation of our Constitution? The Fifth Amendment's Takings Clause states that private property cannot be taken for public use without just compensation. This clause is intended to prevent the government from forcing individuals to bear excessive burdens for the public good and yet what happened within just 1 generation? States begin eating away at this in small incremental steps starting with the taxation of livestock mainly while a few states also taxed land. Eventually this spread b/c what politician doesn't like more tax money coming to buy more votes? We went to war with Britain over a %2 tax and yet today you pay more than that in sales tax.
Regardless if one believes it's just or not, as long as we have property taxation we don't have true property rights because the government can take it, without just compensation, if you neglect to pay that annual eternal rent to the government. There are a number of way to funds the costs of local services like education without property taxation. The only reason for keeping it in place is that like with the income tax it allows the government to invade your privacy. There is no excuse as to why as of today, local governments can't simply come up with a budget and divide that cost up amongst all applicable citizens and bill them like any private service provider does and if they don't pay then you place a lien in the property just like a private party has to. Local bureaucrats don't want this changed because it's easier to obscure the corruption they are engaged in with property taxes and in some of teh worst locales, the local bureaucrats use it to effectively steal peoples homes to make money. They will take someone's home who owes a few thousand dollars, sell it to a friend or family member (or even a developer) for pennies on the dollar and then said family/friend provides them with a kikcback from the money the made. yes it is that bad in some places.
Just as with the income tax, the property tax was marketed to the masses as being something that would be primarily the burden of the wealthy and of course we all know that was a lie. Not only do the truly wealthy find ways to avoid income taxes (i.e. being compensated not with a salary or bonus but with stocks ) but they have the money to pay the expensive tax lawyers to minimize how much they pay in property taxes. To be clear I don't blame them for doing this as I would do it if I could because teh government is excessive and abusive with it's taxation and it needs to come to an end. Income tax needs to be replaced with a sales tax and property taxes need to be replaced with direct billing of services.
What is happening now is that it's been discovered that there is widespread fraud with property taxes on the part of the government, specifically the tax accessors. It's been found that what's being going on is that government entities like the education departments are telling tax accessors how much needs to be raised and the accessors are fudging the valuations to increase teh taxes enough to cover that budget. There is a huge lawsuit in Denton TX over this.
There is no need to ask the question of should we get rid of private property rights since we don't have them to begin with. What we have is the illusion of ownership and this is new. It wasn't to many generations back that when you owned property it was yours and you passed it down without fear of your own governance taking it instead or forcing you pay a sin tax to the government for owning such property.
It kind of reminds me of the concept of a nudist commune. There are details you just don't want to know, you don't want to live with 3 families to a house and btw, communism has failed over and over. A visit might be interesting but blistering sunburn is the risk. Watch the original Dr. Zhivago, the one with Julie Christie and Omar Shariff, directed by David Lean. Boris Pasternak, the writer who had his prize winning novel smuggled samizdat (piece by piece in the linings of suitcases) from Russia to the original Italian publisher, told the real story of the people during and after a "people's revolution." For a window into the woke "Komintern" look up "Trans Journalists' Association Style Guide" webpage, where "experts" declare that traumatized ex-wives, children of or parents of narcissists living in a delusion are never to have their side of the story told.
Revolutionary Communists of America. Be careful what you ask for. You Just Might Get It. Good And Hard.
I know a few VERY wealthy people. They usually work insane hours and provide jobs to hundreds of people. Not to mention the buildings on campuses named after them for the millions donated.
I watched it to the end. You didn't miss much. He mainly just repeated the same stale slogans, phrases, and floating abstractions that his fellow communists typically utter. He's merely one of millions of Lenin's modern useful idiots.
It’s all been tried over and over. The Greeks 2500 years ago realized that a naked pure democracy resulted in tyranny and discrimination. The first thing this kid would do is remove your 1st and 2nd amendment rights, followed quickly by the rest of them.
Idealism born of delusions, thanks to a grain of truth.
What "grain of truth" is that?
That the current generation is less stable and well off than previous generations, is less likely to afford to get on the property ladder, and that corporate profits seem to them to be the sole reason for their lack of financial stability and success as a generation. When you have generations feeling disempowered financially, as well as seeing the corruption in both political parties at the top, they are ripe for being brainwashed into believing that our current system is wrong and can’t be fixed, and must be broken and replaced by this ‘utopian’ other system called communism. They’re told that this other system is one of equality and fairness, and where greed won’t happen. It’s all delusion, but it’s because they’re not educated and they’re also disillusioned with the current state of society.
Well at least you managed to find someone who was willing to talk to you. He seems to actually believe in his ideas that he put forward. I might not agree with him but I applaud his willingness to speak about it.
True. This is FAR more difficult than it seems. It could be because we were discussing economic and not identity concerns. In spite of our disagreement, he was a very nice, personable young man.
He certainly came across that way. You’re probably right that the abstract nature of the economic discussions, it was easier. You didn’t necessarily get into individual personal stories. Even without the identity aspect, you can cause problems if they tell you a personal story and don’t react the “correct” way.
I realize this will be read as "Hi! Idiot here," but I was a real communist for many years and argued much as this young man does--in fact, I must concede he is more articulate than I was. I appreciate your airing this as I'm still working out where the doctrine runs into fallacy and fantasy, where there may be some truth. For that reason, I only wish I'd heard more in response from you.
I try to let participants speak as much as possible. Viewers rarely want to hear what I have to say but only then in response to someone who disagrees. I also think I gave him ample time to respond and was very respectful.
You were exceedingly respectful, and this is exactly what I appreciate about you. My comment isn't meant as a criticism, but an admission that, although I've left the Marxist movement, I don't know how to respond to many of that young communist's arguments. And I suspect I'm not alone. I've learned a lot from your pedagogy, and would welcome any future dive into Marxism.
The Tories who had earned their private property by means of voluntary trade had every right to keep all of it, as the colonists had to keep all of their property that they earned the same way, and not have Washington expropriate it from them, as he did from whiskey distillers. If the Tories had property that they had received from King George III, that property was stolen by the king and distributed to his employees and civilian supporters. That property should have been returned to their rightful owners.
Peter should have asked the communists by what physical means would he and his comrades expropriate that private property, and how would they deal with private property owners who refused to comply with communists' demands to hand it over? If this communist is consistent in his commitment to his political philosophy, he would have to answer, "by physical force, and if they resist, we would kill them."
Communism, like the other expressions of Statism: Socialism, Fascism, and Theocracy, deny legitimate individual rights, especially private property rights, and support and practice the initiation of physical force up to and including the commission of murder to achieve its ends: dictatorship and slavery.
If I remember correctly, didn't I:
Peter should have asked the communists by what physical means would he and his comrades expropriate that private property, and how would they deal with private property owners who refused to comply with communists' demands to hand it over?
If not, then I must have done so off air.
The working class should try working
I spent 40+ years on the Factory Floor. Try a dead run in 120 degree heat making Bolts, 12 0n 12 off 12 day on 2 days off making Urethane calk, Then come talk to me.
Hard pass.
But The Money Was Really Good.
Do you seriously think that you would have been hired to perform that work if there were not enough market demand for urethane calk that made it worthwhile (i.e., profitable) to produce?
Communists worship the physicality of physical labor, and not at all the thinking that guides that labor. Their Labor Theory of Value regards physical labor as having intrinsic value completely independent of and inherently superior to the market (i.e., individual consumer-determined) value of the product of labor.
They get So much wrong ts hard to know where to start.
Democratic communism is an oxymoron.