The mentality of socialism versus capitalism

You can't trespass on property you own, even if that ownership is communal. As far as why I'm talking about this, I'm not sure I remember why I got on it as a subject, but private property ownership does fly in the face of "pure" socialism. But, you're right, it's a problem that doesn't exist for now, except for the fact that some people do in fact desire for it to become real, including quite a few on this very board. But it will only ever happen over my very dead body.

I note you forgot to address why you are meddling in the affairs of the USA, when you don't live here, making it none of your business. Care to do so?

 

Yet that's exactly where the overlords want you .. an island. They want you disconnected from the power structures of the peasantry - private property, family, community. The more they can prise you from that foundation - the more they can turn you away from those things and towards themselves - the more of your lifetime wealth and allegience they'll have.

 

You're either not reading anything I post, or you're talking to someone else.

Do you know what a collective is? It seems you have no clue. It's PRIVATE PROPERTY - jointly purchased, maintained, and shared. There are no 'rents' involved. Members earn their access via commitment and labour, not market rate dollars. The only thing which can ever exclude someone in the circle, is their own behaviour (laziness, instability, unreliability, irresponsibility, abuse of the privilege, etc). But that kind of thing isn't common in people born into a culture of collectivism, because it literally can't be tolerated. There is no surplus to carry any but the old, the sick, and the young.

 

Whatever you want to call them. Progressive Leftists, Chardonnay Socialists, Marxists .. call them what you will, but they play directly into the hands of the lites when they demonise private property.

That's EXACTLY what they want you to do (because in so doing, you hasten the advent of the life-renting underclass they dream of), and I've disserted on that fact in several posts. You actually denied that was what they do, then went on to ... demonise private property.

You can't make this stuff up. You're like my shadow confirmer ... paid to trail around proving all my points for me.

 

Is that you, Joel Kotkin?



Following a remarkable epoch of greater dispersion of wealth and opportunity, we are inexorably returning towards a more feudal era marked by greater concentration of wealth and property, reduced upward mobility, demographic stagnation, and increased dogmatism. If the last seventy years saw a massive expansion of the middle class, not only in America but in much of the developed world, today that class is declining and a new, more hierarchical society is emerging.

The new class structure resembles that of Medieval times. At the apex of the new order are two classes—a reborn clerical elite, the clerisy, which dominates the upper part of the professional ranks, universities, media and culture, and a new aristocracy led by tech oligarchs with unprecedented wealth and growing control of information. These two classes correspond to the old French First and Second Estates.

Below these two classes lies what was once called the Third Estate. This includes the yeomanry, which is made up largely of small businesspeople, minor property owners, skilled workers and private-sector oriented professionals. Ascendant for much of modern history, this class is in decline while those below them, the new Serfs, grow in numbers—a vast, expanding property-less population...

https://www.encounterbooks.com/book...mographic stagnation, and increased dogmatism.

 

You're talking about something entirely different to collectivism. You're talking about politics and totalitarians.

Collectivism as practised by humanity (and many social mammals) forever, requires TERRITORY. Whether that's a self-built shanty on a piece of unclaimed land, a hunting/grazing zone, or a family house on ten acres ... there is no security and independence without that ownership. Once rents are introduced, or worse .... the insecurity of tenure that goes with non-ownership, any chance of power for the common man is lost.

Rents are strictly for those rich enough to survive the uncertainties and lack of self-determination.

 

I just wanted to say kudos to you for not responding to her pureile insults with any more of the same.

 

1) I am a collectivist .. just like every other human who lives via collective. In Western parlance it's known as socialism.

2) Collectives MUST have private property. It's absolutely fundamental to the model.

3) Tenants who refuse property (and who aren't wealthy) are undermining the common man - transfering his wealth and power to the elites - so yes, they are a huge problem.

4) I do care about my community, that's why I ****ing share it. Anyone within our circle of trust who needs housing, can earn their place (via commitment, labour, dependability, responsibility etc .. just like everyone else) and have lifetime access to housing and land. We're at around 16 people now, with more coming this year. How many have you brought in out of the cold?

5) Marx was a privileged tool, bored by his own safety and turned to meddling with the peasants for his own entertainment. He's largely responsible for the destruction of our collectivist habits, via the trojan horse of 'compassion' he provided for the overlords - who are now profiting from that disenfranchisement.

 

Our emporer friend has no clothes.

It's a sad and tiresome feature of the Cafe Socialist, to be freaked out by lived collectivism. I have no freaking clue what 'socialism' looks like in their fantasies, but if the reality is so upsetting .... it must be a very bizarre landscape.

 

Cool. Let's go collect all the local bums and junkies and bring them too.

 

If you undermine or alter the survival instincts of generations, eventually 'morality' will look very different to the earlier iterations. You simply cannot expect humans to behave a certain way, when you remove the very impetus (survival) for those behaviours from the equation.

You can't expect people to do what they have to do to survive (ie, behave according to morals which arose out of our survival instincts), when they're simultaneously assured they don't have to do anything to survive.

 

It didn't have to. The damage was done psychically.

 

So when a bunch of lazy @ssholes pitch tents, eat all the vegetables you grew, soil your water source, and frighten your children .. you'll be fine with that. Because you're a compassionate 'socialist', right?

 

No, but I could be! He's absolutely correct.

We're about to lose all the gains made by the common working man - the same gains which allowed us to resist and vote. And it will have been hastened away by those too vain or stupid to recognise that's what they're doing. They've somehow managed to convince themselves that it will help the common man, to give away all his gains.

 

“Forward to Feudalism! YA!!”

It’s sheer ignorance, and if these self-styled geniuses picked up a History book now and then they would know better.

They have no idea that it was the rise of the middle class and the assertion of its property rights in Ancient Greece that forced the ruling oligarchies to put the law into writing and enact the reforms of Solon and Cleisthenes that produced the birth of democracy in the West. They have no idea that it was the acquisition of property and the assertion of property rights by commoners during the Medieval Agricultural and Commercial revolutions that gave rise to the middle class that relit the beacon of democracy in the West after a thousand years. They have no idea that Medieval rights theorists developed the first individual rights doctrines during this very same time, and they have no idea that the first rights that were affirmed, along with the rights connected to them, were the rights to life and property. We’ve all heard Locke’s famous assertion of the inalienable rights to “life, liberty and property” (or estate), but as you know, where the interconnected rights to life and property don’t exist, liberty cannot and does not exist.

Our ancestors were intimately aware of this, and it’s astonishing that so many of us in the so-called Information Age have no clue, much less an awareness of this.

To end on a humorous note:

 

Then why do you buy up land, reduce its availability for others and charge rent?
Are you trying to increase lack of self determination and dispersal of your beloved community?

 

You seem to have a very dim view of your beloved common man.
I could imagine you standing at the gate with a large blunderbuss fending off intruders.
No crank. The assumption is that we all own the land, work on it and share the results.
Sigh.

 

So you would welcome squatters onto your land?

When such people leave they have zero issue leaving you truck loads of garbage to pick up.

 

You completely missed the point.
Again.

 

That's some nice projection you got going as usual.

Anytime you give someone something for free there's a large percentage of them that will hold no value in it.

But you go ahead and open your land of squatters and see how much they respect the gift.

You know why homeless camps look the way they do? Because they pay nothing they have no attachment no value to it and they don't give a damn.

That's why they get ran off because property owners don't like having to do things like bring a dump truck in to clean up behind them

 

Please don't put words in my mouth.
I never said socialism is "free stuff."
You did.
I said it is all WORKING together to create COMMUNAL benefits.
The means of production is owned by EVERYONE. It is about teams who work together and all benefit. You support individual effort and you take all the profit...anyone else doesn't matter and in fact their loss is their fault.

Odd you criticise tenants for ripping the heart out of the community and yet happily allow them the opportunity to do so. Have you not yet seen the contradiction in your position?

 

No one owes you a damn thing just because you exist except they owe you the simple courtesy of leaving you alone.

When people work for what they have they tend to value it.

When you simply give people something they don't have any respect for it and in fact they come to depend on it and develop a sense of entitlement.

It's laziness personified.

 

What don't you understand about WORKING TOGETHER to produce together and share the product??
Working as a TEAM ...like a sports team who all add what they can and share the results.
I am not discussing squatters. I am discussing the ideology of socialism.

 

I am not giving anyone anything!
Everyone is expected to contribute!
I suggest you revisit what socialism is.

 

I know what socialism is I'm aware of its history of failure.

It sounds great in a young idealistic sort of way except it just doesn't work out that well in reality.

There is a reason socialism appeals mostly to the lazy and to the young. The young people don't yet have enough life experience to realize there's nothing for free, and the lazy are just more than willing to sit there with their hands out as long as you'll keep putting something in it.

The cheese is never free.