These Pilgrims it seems have been brought to a New World by what sounds like a Modern business model which is only interested in pillaging the resources of what might exist there . Once landed there, the Pilgrims instead of seeing the beauty of the unscarred land and the opportunity to begin a new life n peace and accord with nature..as the indigenous inhabitants do. Resort to turning their little bit of paradise into Little Europe, complete with all the hierarchy, pecking order, greed, jealousy and every other sin that they carried aboard their Ark from England.
Just the fact that they built a Fort to protect themselves from people who needed no forts, no courts, no jails or sheriff's to live in harmony with one another.. Tells me who were the bad actors here. And it's always been these same types of people who feel justified in taking from others what is no theirs ... because they felt no remorse in doing so.
PTSD only occurs in those who have a conscious. That is one of the main differences between the have and have nots.
John, I must say, the monumental effort that you have put into your thoughts and ideas is truly remarkable.
To than formulate them into a clear and concise articulate manner is again such a great achievement.
I'm 72 years old and have always been a seeker of Truths and I find it perplexing that I have never heard of the Egalitarian movement?
I'm presently reading thru your two books No Rich and No Poor and Divide and Rule. The ideals that Egalitarianism present are humanely so much more satisfying (I could almost use the word Heavenly) than our present (and I'll use the word) Hellish system of Democratic/Capitalism.
The closest societies that resemble your movement is what I read about the Native Americans- - who Prided themselves on how much they gave away to others.... And the Amish who take better care of one another.
Both societies have been villanized by capitalism as being Savage snd Backward , in that order .
My question to you John is ? These
Have's and or Hammers or as I refer to them as Devil's have certainly been around for Eon's . Their most striking characteristics are : They love to be served, but will never serve. They know you want to hear the Truth- so they tell you so many lies, you won't know what the Truth is. They know you think there must be some good in them, but their is not. They can't Love but they crave it. Therefore they use Fear to command your Respect. And I'll wrap that up with paraphrasing what Benjamin Franklin said about them.... They are driven to all High Places as that is where Power and Money exists.
What I'm describing is Pure Evil people!
Every Indian tribe that I read about felt that they were not even human- based on the way they acted.
Personally, I hated them from the day I saw Nixon's dark suits trample over and kick women and boys in my sophomore year in HS in his election campaign that came through our town.
I'm just wondering why you never describe them as Evil? I understand Robert E Lee always referred to the Union army leaders as 'those people' to
hold down in his soul any contentious
feelings that might surface as hatred...
or sins. As these Bastards today make me indulge in so much hatred and sin against them.
But I am just wondering, so if you could please indulge me on this.
And plainly it seems to me what is lacking to speed us up to resolve this horrible dilemma that we find ourselves in....is to Unify ourselves with all of us Birds of a feather, that tend to Fly Together. Come Together
Thank you so much for your kind and supportive words!
Regarding "evil," I do now and then refer to what our rulers do as evil. Please see this by doing a search for the word "evil" in the text search box on my website at https://www.pdrboston.org/ . I called Dr. Fauci evil. On a related note, there's a photo of me on the homepage of my website (down on the right hand side) holding a sign on the sidewalk in my neighborhood that says: "It is a sin to build luxury housing when high rents are driving working class people out of the neighborhood."
I agree with you that there are societies such as the Amish and American Indians who have rejected the evil values and ways of our rulers. There is nothing in human nature that requires us to have oppression.
I went to an Amish settlement in Pennsylvania one day as a tourist, but that's it. I'll put this research project on my list. Have you researched them?
No, but the general impression is that they are a self-supporting community with overall stability and cohesion. It would be interesting to know the real story.
Beautiful article about the history that we were never taught. I read a story that intimated that some colonists fled the British Isles to protect their children from the Catholic clergy and nobles, who would abduct them for their Satanic rituals.
I never blocked you. Proof is your comment above actually appearing. I didn't accuse you of not feeding your own children. I asked you if you fed them by making them BUY their dinner. This question was to point out that if you GAVE them their dinner instead of SELLING it to them, then you were, IN PRACTICE, following the principle of "From each according to reasonable ability, to each according to need or reasonable desire with scarce things equitable rationed according to need," a principle you stigmatize as Communism (meaning what Marxist dictatorships impose, which they don't, alas, actually do) but is really simply the basic morality of the Golden Rule that the vast majority of people--good and decent people--support in their personal lives and practice.
For some reason I was unable to reply to your allegation that I was charging my own children for food, merely because I am not a communist. Parents have built-in motives for feeding their OWN children, and there are already criminal laws against starving your own children.
Your idea, is that if I attempt to sell my own labor (or property) in exchange for resources with which to feed MY children, the government must intervene and confiscate the fruits of my labors, in order to guarantee an "equal" outcome for everyone else's children. The truth is, less than $0.03 of every tax dollar collected for the "less able" ever ends up in the hands of the needy. This is because government can NOT be trusted with our $$$. There is no way to set up a communist government WITHOUT handing government the power to control ALL resources and property. Another truth, is that before the welfare programs (which only led to broken homes and extreme poverty) the % of income that was voluntarily given to charities was 10 times what it is now.
You trust the "collectors" with absolute control over all resources and labor. You trust some mystical authority to properly decide what to do with my resources, i.e., who deserves is MORE than my own children do. I don't agree with you. Your communist utopia concentrates way too much power into the hands of very few people, i.e., the collectors and their "redistributors."
I also don't believe that people with ZERO incentive to be productive WILL be productive. This is due to the fact that, in a communist system, nothing people do (besides sucking up to the communist party) will actually improve their lot in life, although their communist government might punish them if the government has decided they have the "ability" to feed everyone BUT their OWN children, and they are only feeding their own children, i.e., forced labor.
So now the truth comes out, and you finally admit that you're a communist. Why did you initially attempt to deny this? Why not go join up with other communists, hand over all of your resources to their "authority" on redistribution, and leave it at that?
Thank you. It's quite dishonest to pretend you're advocating for an egalitarian world while promoting your ideal that the government should confiscate, control, and redistribute all resources and labor according to their own perception of our "need" and "ability." You firmly believe in, and want to see, a communist world.
There is a REASON communism is considered bad and has been "stigma
So then the state ("local egalitarians") will heartily punish those who don't work to support others? So your plan includes the "the stick" of forced labor.
So in your utopia, people would be deprived of the freedom to work for their OWN survival, (no private ownership of the fruits of one's own labors) AND if they refuse to work for the "common good" they will be deprived of the collective pot of resources as well.
What a nice plan. It's so very "egalitarian" of you;-)
Before accusing me of being a Communist, why don’t you read my writing that arracks Communism and Marxism? Go here to start: https://www.pdrboston.org/communism
What Marx advocated for communism. You advocate for these very same ideals. What EXACTLY distinguishes your ideals from communism/Marxism?
Is it the "local" enforcement of communism which makes you believe it's ethical to state that you're actually just advocating for "egalitarianism" when in fact, you're a hard-core communist?
Again, the only mechanism by which a government can promise "equality of outcome" is via the confiscation of property and labor, in order to redistribute it. Your belief that communism is great so long as it's only enforced "locally" (by a group of egalitarians;-) is seriously lacking logic.
First, egalitarians believe in equality of RIGHTS and OPPORTUNITY. It's false to state that egalitarians believe in government enforcing the equality of OUTCOME via the forcible confiscation of, and control over. all resources and labor.
The beauty of the ideal of a Republic, (which has clearly been perverted in America) is the premise that all people are created by GOD and therefore are entitled to certain fundamental rights which can NOT be voted away by the majority (who might want to eat them for dinner.) You see, these INDIVIDUAL (rather than collective) rights, are not granted by government. They are GOD given, so therefore, the government doesn't get to take them away, even if the majority VOTES to take them away from the minority.
America went downhill with the "general welfare" clause, which has been used to justify the government's involvement in subsidizing "causes" which often includes trillion dollar welfare checks to banks and other private companies, and the pretense that they're the "authority" entitled to tax all of the middle-class PRODUCERS to death in order to incentivize women to have fatherless children. And then the government doesn't even hand that money over to these fatherless families anyway, a tiny fraction of what was collected for the stated purpose.
The government workers and their friends end up enjoying MOST of the money they take. But without that "collective" ideal, wherein they're given power to confiscate it on pretense they must enforce equality of OUTCOME (the collective good) they wouldn't be ABLE to rob any of us. But you hate the wealthy. You don't seem to hate the thieves in government, but you hate anyone who manages to get ahead in life, such that you'd want the government to force them to labor for the benefit of others (according to their ability).
You want the general public sitting in there hopeless place where there's ZERO incentive to do other than collect a check from the government, OR be punished by that same government and sent to a work camp to support people deemed to be less "able."
ALL of this mess is the RESULT of our Republic spiraling into a fascist/communist government, wherein the "moral authority" presumes it must intervene to assure equality of outcome for all. NOBODY can be trusted with the power to deprive me of the fruits of my labors on pretense there's someone else who deserves to enjoy them more than I, whether these authorities are "local" or national.
A local tyrant with the power to strip me of my labor and property and give it to someone else, (or himself, his friends, whatever) is no more pleasant than a tyrant in a distant land.
Refer to these communist tyrants as "egalitarians" is a contradiction, since egalitarians to NOT believe in communism. They don't believe in it because communism only deprives people of their INDIVIDUAL rights. it's impossible to protect individual rights AND produce equal outcomes.
The most fundamental value of communism is that the individual is irrelevant, and that individual rights MUST ALWAYS BE DISPOSED OF IN FAVOR OF THE "COLLECTIVE GOOD." And this is why communism always leads to tyranny, and exactly ZERO rights (or opportunities) for any individual.
The only "right" that lasts under communism, is the right to stand in a bread line and worship the ruling party, under penalty of being sent to a work camp as punishment should you not contribute (to the wealth of the party leaders)
Go sell your communist agenda, (which no doubt, you expect would place YOU in a position to decide what to do with MY resources) somewhere else. Just because you're attempting to alter the nomenclature, (to hide the fact you're a communist) doesn't change what communism actually is. It's an extreme concentration of wealth and power into the control of a FEW, on pretense those few will "equally" distribute MY labor and property to whomever THEY believe deserves it more than the person who earned it.
I have no questions. I understand you are in favor of "locally" enforced communism, and that you do not believe in individual rights, preferring they be trampled in favor of the collective "each according to need."
I am also aware you are dishonest enough to attempt to rebrand your hard-core communist values as "egalitarian."
I did go take a look at your attempt to rebrand communism as "egalitarian."
You lost me at "from each according to his ability" and "to each according to his need."
And stating that we must find a way guarantee equality of OUTCOME (regardless of merit) was a pretty clear indicator that your true ideal is actually communism, no matter how you wish to rebrand it to make is sound "different." It's the same, but different;-)
So you only want the "local" government to confiscate the fruits of MY labors and redistribute them to those whom THEY believe deserve them more then me or my own children? How nice. It's still just communism.
Right now, YOU are free to go join (or form) a commune any time you want to. YOU can immediately surrender all control over your OWN property and labor, and hand it to whatever group you trust to do what's best with any of it. This is how you get to test your theory that communism works perfectly so long as it's done "locally."
But perhaps your true utopia places YOU in charge of controlling all of those resources and deciding WHO is worthy of distributions? Maybe you'll decide that because I am more "able" than my neighbor, HIS children should eat heartily while mine go hungry? Or maybe you'll decide that your own children should eat more heartily than mine, because after-al, your family is doing the important work of redistributing the fruits of MY labor?
This is exactly like the carbon freaks who fly around in jets telling everyone ELSE that they're supposed to walk or ride bikes and EAT BUGS for dinner.
Stop trying to rebrand your ideology under false terms. You argument is simply this:
"Communism is wonderful, but it's gotten a bad wrap. It's just needs to be done correctly. If it's failed to produce anything other than grinding poverty and mass genocide in the past, this is merely because it wasn't inflicted "locally" and according to my own dictates."
Debt slavery is not the definition of "free market capitalism." The version of capitalism sold to us, is very different. It's welfare for the already extremely wealthy, enforced by the government who takes our money and hands it over to the wealthiest corporations, while enforcing laws that prevent any of us competing in the free market.
I hardly see how stripping all of us of ALL of our rights to property, our labor, etc., (and handing it all over to a communist government who promises to distribute it equally) is going to solve anything. It never has before, and it's been tried many times.
The nice thing about America, is that you are free to join a communist/collective organization if you wish. You can surrender all of your property, and all control over your labor to a central body that will promise to distribute it equally. Good luck with that.
Who advocated "stripping all of us of ALL of our rights to property, our labor, etc., (and handing it all over to a communist government who promises to distribute it equally)"? Certainly not I. I advocate genuine democracy, as i discuss athttps://www.pdrboston.org/genuine-democracy-what-is-it .
So what is your alternative to people having the right to "capitalize" upon their own earnings and holdings? How would you prevent this, without preventing people from benefitting from their own earnings, and being able to control their own assets?
What exactly is your alternative to people capitalizing upon their own labors, trades, and property, i.e., this "capitalism" which you do not agree with?
"1) Equality (in the "no rich and no poor" and "from each according to ability, to each according to need" - "
So what do I think? I think you're a communist and you're afraid to use the word and just be HONEST about what you're advocating for. You're trying to make it sound so fair ("equal"). You're avoiding just telling the truth, which is that you fully embrace communism and all of it's most fundamental tenets, including wealth redistribution, i.e., taking MY shit away from me and giving it to someone whom you've decided has less "ability" to take care of themselves than I do.
So exactly WHO do you trust to "equally" redistribute (enforce) your utopian world where the fruits of MY labor will be redistributed to someone else, someone YOU believe has less "ability" but more "need" than I have? GOVERNMENT CONTROL is the only mechanism by which you will ever enforce such an ideal. You must trust government very much.
What you're proposing is communism, although you want the majority (the mob) to "democratically" deprive me of the fruits of MY labors, and give it to someone else - because "according to their need" they don't have the "ability" to earn it themselves.
Your plan for utopia requires GOVERNMENT collectors who will redistribute MY earnings, having decided I have less "need" than someone else. Looks EXACTLY like the Soviet Union model, or maybe Venezuela's.
What a pathetic argument for communism. Your argument is that the government should be given the power to starve MY progeny by confiscating the fruits of MY labor and giving it to someone else's family, because this other family has less "ability" or because their "needs" are greater than those of my own family.
Your presumption that parents have no interest in feeding their own children, and that therefore, the state must take possession and control over all resources AND our children in order to feed MY children, is silly. We ALREADY have laws criminalizing the act of starving our OWN children. We already owe a duty of care to OUR children, and it's a criminal act to deprive them of basic needs like food. We do NOT need communism (incorrectly re-branded as "egalitarianism") in order for OUR OWN children to be fed.
And the fact is, before the government started the communist welfare programs (which only led to broken and fatherless homes, due to the incentivization of single motherhood, which then led to extreme poverty in the inner cities) the % of income VOLUNTARILY given to charity was 10 times what it is now.
My children are NOT the government's property. They are not YOUR property. They do NOT belong to the government. I have my own incentives (starting with love) to make sure they don't starve to death before they are able to support themselves. Just because there are parents out there who don't care enough to feed their own children, does NOT mean the government has the right to rob my children of the resources I would otherwise have provided them.
I know of a working single mother who can barely scrape by BECAUSE OF the taxes she's forced to pay. She informed me there's a couple on welfare living next door, (but doing quite well, the real father has a great career) but who refuse to get marry because that mother is getting tons of public benefits in exchange for pretending she can't "remember" who got her pregnant, and remaining unemployed. So while the hard-working mother struggles to pay taxes that go to the couple next door, the welfare mom lives high on the hog and doesn't have to work.
According to "need?" You want government to redistribute wealth according to THEIR values? Government will decided who has the "ability" and who's needs are greater? Government confiscate and control all resources and then decide what to do with all of it - allocating however they see fit?
And your idea that this is a "democracy" is incorrect. It's a representative REPUBLIC, wherein there are fundamental rights which the mob is NEVER supposed to be able to "vote" away.
In a pure democracy, you have two wolves and one sheep voting on what's for dinner. Even if the election rigging could be prevented, it would always inevitably lead to a "working class" of sheep-slaves who are regularly sheered - "cuz they have the 'ability' " - and "cuz the others have greater needs."
Egalitarian means equal RIGHTS not equal OUTCOMES. You're a communist who believes the government should guarantee equal outcomes for all. The closest your ideal form of government (which has been tried MANY times) has even come to producing equal outcomes, is profound poverty of MOST, and decadent riches for the GOVERNMENT to enjoy, due to the fact the government controls all resources. I guess you don't believe that absolute power - absolutely corrupts, every freakin time. Well it DOES.
Have you ever considered the possibility that a truly free market leads to competition, which means monopolies (which are NOT maintained via government intervention, i.e., fascism on pretense of collective good) can be crushed by the little people?
The only way to effectively shut down competition (from the little guys) is for the government to get involved in protecting these massive monopolies via subsidies, i.e., "too big to fail" bailouts, and other grants, basically choosing the winners and losers with our tax dollars - which were stolen from us on pretense of "the common good" or "collective" good, or "general welfare" clause.
We are sometimes upset with what we believe is the result of "free-market capitalism" when the reality is, we have NOT been living under any such system. We have been living under a fascist system, (government controlled by the monopolies) which is justified and supported with the ideology of the "collective good." The "collective good" means that government controls and limits our ability to choose what to do with the fruits of OUR labors, and government gives those fruits to others on pretense that these monopolies will do what's best for us.
GOVERNMENT is growing these monopolies by choosing who will never have to face competition in a truly 'free market' system. And what is the argument for shutting down the competition? COMMON GOOD. There's no way to fix any of this by insisting that it's the "free market" or "capitalism" causing the problem of monopolies. It's government handouts to their buddies in business causing the monopolies, NOT "free market capitalism."
Fascinating info about the “going native” history. I had seen a reference to this in another text a few years ago and had wanted more on it. Thanks.
These Pilgrims it seems have been brought to a New World by what sounds like a Modern business model which is only interested in pillaging the resources of what might exist there . Once landed there, the Pilgrims instead of seeing the beauty of the unscarred land and the opportunity to begin a new life n peace and accord with nature..as the indigenous inhabitants do. Resort to turning their little bit of paradise into Little Europe, complete with all the hierarchy, pecking order, greed, jealousy and every other sin that they carried aboard their Ark from England.
Just the fact that they built a Fort to protect themselves from people who needed no forts, no courts, no jails or sheriff's to live in harmony with one another.. Tells me who were the bad actors here. And it's always been these same types of people who feel justified in taking from others what is no theirs ... because they felt no remorse in doing so.
PTSD only occurs in those who have a conscious. That is one of the main differences between the have and have nots.
John, I must say, the monumental effort that you have put into your thoughts and ideas is truly remarkable.
To than formulate them into a clear and concise articulate manner is again such a great achievement.
I'm 72 years old and have always been a seeker of Truths and I find it perplexing that I have never heard of the Egalitarian movement?
I'm presently reading thru your two books No Rich and No Poor and Divide and Rule. The ideals that Egalitarianism present are humanely so much more satisfying (I could almost use the word Heavenly) than our present (and I'll use the word) Hellish system of Democratic/Capitalism.
The closest societies that resemble your movement is what I read about the Native Americans- - who Prided themselves on how much they gave away to others.... And the Amish who take better care of one another.
Both societies have been villanized by capitalism as being Savage snd Backward , in that order .
My question to you John is ? These
Have's and or Hammers or as I refer to them as Devil's have certainly been around for Eon's . Their most striking characteristics are : They love to be served, but will never serve. They know you want to hear the Truth- so they tell you so many lies, you won't know what the Truth is. They know you think there must be some good in them, but their is not. They can't Love but they crave it. Therefore they use Fear to command your Respect. And I'll wrap that up with paraphrasing what Benjamin Franklin said about them.... They are driven to all High Places as that is where Power and Money exists.
What I'm describing is Pure Evil people!
Every Indian tribe that I read about felt that they were not even human- based on the way they acted.
Personally, I hated them from the day I saw Nixon's dark suits trample over and kick women and boys in my sophomore year in HS in his election campaign that came through our town.
I'm just wondering why you never describe them as Evil? I understand Robert E Lee always referred to the Union army leaders as 'those people' to
hold down in his soul any contentious
feelings that might surface as hatred...
or sins. As these Bastards today make me indulge in so much hatred and sin against them.
But I am just wondering, so if you could please indulge me on this.
And plainly it seems to me what is lacking to speed us up to resolve this horrible dilemma that we find ourselves in....is to Unify ourselves with all of us Birds of a feather, that tend to Fly Together. Come Together
God Speed to Us All
Hi Thomas,
Thank you so much for your kind and supportive words!
Regarding "evil," I do now and then refer to what our rulers do as evil. Please see this by doing a search for the word "evil" in the text search box on my website at https://www.pdrboston.org/ . I called Dr. Fauci evil. On a related note, there's a photo of me on the homepage of my website (down on the right hand side) holding a sign on the sidewalk in my neighborhood that says: "It is a sin to build luxury housing when high rents are driving working class people out of the neighborhood."
I agree with you that there are societies such as the Amish and American Indians who have rejected the evil values and ways of our rulers. There is nothing in human nature that requires us to have oppression.
What do you think of my proposal that I describe at https://open.substack.com/pub/johnspritzler/p/revolutionary-movement-building-101?r=1iggn&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web ?
Thank you again for your kind words. Let's stay in touch!
Hi John, have you ever researched the Amish and established if they have some lessons for us?
I went to an Amish settlement in Pennsylvania one day as a tourist, but that's it. I'll put this research project on my list. Have you researched them?
No, but the general impression is that they are a self-supporting community with overall stability and cohesion. It would be interesting to know the real story.
Beautiful article about the history that we were never taught. I read a story that intimated that some colonists fled the British Isles to protect their children from the Catholic clergy and nobles, who would abduct them for their Satanic rituals.
Accused me of refusing to feed my own children if I don't accept his communist ideals. And then blocked me from answering.
Wow.
I never blocked you. Proof is your comment above actually appearing. I didn't accuse you of not feeding your own children. I asked you if you fed them by making them BUY their dinner. This question was to point out that if you GAVE them their dinner instead of SELLING it to them, then you were, IN PRACTICE, following the principle of "From each according to reasonable ability, to each according to need or reasonable desire with scarce things equitable rationed according to need," a principle you stigmatize as Communism (meaning what Marxist dictatorships impose, which they don't, alas, actually do) but is really simply the basic morality of the Golden Rule that the vast majority of people--good and decent people--support in their personal lives and practice.
For some reason I was unable to reply to your allegation that I was charging my own children for food, merely because I am not a communist. Parents have built-in motives for feeding their OWN children, and there are already criminal laws against starving your own children.
Your idea, is that if I attempt to sell my own labor (or property) in exchange for resources with which to feed MY children, the government must intervene and confiscate the fruits of my labors, in order to guarantee an "equal" outcome for everyone else's children. The truth is, less than $0.03 of every tax dollar collected for the "less able" ever ends up in the hands of the needy. This is because government can NOT be trusted with our $$$. There is no way to set up a communist government WITHOUT handing government the power to control ALL resources and property. Another truth, is that before the welfare programs (which only led to broken homes and extreme poverty) the % of income that was voluntarily given to charities was 10 times what it is now.
You trust the "collectors" with absolute control over all resources and labor. You trust some mystical authority to properly decide what to do with my resources, i.e., who deserves is MORE than my own children do. I don't agree with you. Your communist utopia concentrates way too much power into the hands of very few people, i.e., the collectors and their "redistributors."
I also don't believe that people with ZERO incentive to be productive WILL be productive. This is due to the fact that, in a communist system, nothing people do (besides sucking up to the communist party) will actually improve their lot in life, although their communist government might punish them if the government has decided they have the "ability" to feed everyone BUT their OWN children, and they are only feeding their own children, i.e., forced labor.
So now the truth comes out, and you finally admit that you're a communist. Why did you initially attempt to deny this? Why not go join up with other communists, hand over all of your resources to their "authority" on redistribution, and leave it at that?
Thank you. It's quite dishonest to pretend you're advocating for an egalitarian world while promoting your ideal that the government should confiscate, control, and redistribute all resources and labor according to their own perception of our "need" and "ability." You firmly believe in, and want to see, a communist world.
There is a REASON communism is considered bad and has been "stigma
Who said anything about zero incentive? Freeloaders who don’t contribute reasonably according to ability have no right to receive anything.
So then the state ("local egalitarians") will heartily punish those who don't work to support others? So your plan includes the "the stick" of forced labor.
So in your utopia, people would be deprived of the freedom to work for their OWN survival, (no private ownership of the fruits of one's own labors) AND if they refuse to work for the "common good" they will be deprived of the collective pot of resources as well.
What a nice plan. It's so very "egalitarian" of you;-)
Before accusing me of being a Communist, why don’t you read my writing that arracks Communism and Marxism? Go here to start: https://www.pdrboston.org/communism
What Marx advocated for communism. You advocate for these very same ideals. What EXACTLY distinguishes your ideals from communism/Marxism?
Is it the "local" enforcement of communism which makes you believe it's ethical to state that you're actually just advocating for "egalitarianism" when in fact, you're a hard-core communist?
Again, the only mechanism by which a government can promise "equality of outcome" is via the confiscation of property and labor, in order to redistribute it. Your belief that communism is great so long as it's only enforced "locally" (by a group of egalitarians;-) is seriously lacking logic.
First, egalitarians believe in equality of RIGHTS and OPPORTUNITY. It's false to state that egalitarians believe in government enforcing the equality of OUTCOME via the forcible confiscation of, and control over. all resources and labor.
The beauty of the ideal of a Republic, (which has clearly been perverted in America) is the premise that all people are created by GOD and therefore are entitled to certain fundamental rights which can NOT be voted away by the majority (who might want to eat them for dinner.) You see, these INDIVIDUAL (rather than collective) rights, are not granted by government. They are GOD given, so therefore, the government doesn't get to take them away, even if the majority VOTES to take them away from the minority.
America went downhill with the "general welfare" clause, which has been used to justify the government's involvement in subsidizing "causes" which often includes trillion dollar welfare checks to banks and other private companies, and the pretense that they're the "authority" entitled to tax all of the middle-class PRODUCERS to death in order to incentivize women to have fatherless children. And then the government doesn't even hand that money over to these fatherless families anyway, a tiny fraction of what was collected for the stated purpose.
The government workers and their friends end up enjoying MOST of the money they take. But without that "collective" ideal, wherein they're given power to confiscate it on pretense they must enforce equality of OUTCOME (the collective good) they wouldn't be ABLE to rob any of us. But you hate the wealthy. You don't seem to hate the thieves in government, but you hate anyone who manages to get ahead in life, such that you'd want the government to force them to labor for the benefit of others (according to their ability).
You want the general public sitting in there hopeless place where there's ZERO incentive to do other than collect a check from the government, OR be punished by that same government and sent to a work camp to support people deemed to be less "able."
ALL of this mess is the RESULT of our Republic spiraling into a fascist/communist government, wherein the "moral authority" presumes it must intervene to assure equality of outcome for all. NOBODY can be trusted with the power to deprive me of the fruits of my labors on pretense there's someone else who deserves to enjoy them more than I, whether these authorities are "local" or national.
A local tyrant with the power to strip me of my labor and property and give it to someone else, (or himself, his friends, whatever) is no more pleasant than a tyrant in a distant land.
Refer to these communist tyrants as "egalitarians" is a contradiction, since egalitarians to NOT believe in communism. They don't believe in it because communism only deprives people of their INDIVIDUAL rights. it's impossible to protect individual rights AND produce equal outcomes.
The most fundamental value of communism is that the individual is irrelevant, and that individual rights MUST ALWAYS BE DISPOSED OF IN FAVOR OF THE "COLLECTIVE GOOD." And this is why communism always leads to tyranny, and exactly ZERO rights (or opportunities) for any individual.
The only "right" that lasts under communism, is the right to stand in a bread line and worship the ruling party, under penalty of being sent to a work camp as punishment should you not contribute (to the wealth of the party leaders)
Go sell your communist agenda, (which no doubt, you expect would place YOU in a position to decide what to do with MY resources) somewhere else. Just because you're attempting to alter the nomenclature, (to hide the fact you're a communist) doesn't change what communism actually is. It's an extreme concentration of wealth and power into the control of a FEW, on pretense those few will "equally" distribute MY labor and property to whomever THEY believe deserves it more than the person who earned it.
Read my articles I linked to if you really want to know the answers to your questions.
I have no questions. I understand you are in favor of "locally" enforced communism, and that you do not believe in individual rights, preferring they be trampled in favor of the collective "each according to need."
I am also aware you are dishonest enough to attempt to rebrand your hard-core communist values as "egalitarian."
I did go take a look at your attempt to rebrand communism as "egalitarian."
You lost me at "from each according to his ability" and "to each according to his need."
And stating that we must find a way guarantee equality of OUTCOME (regardless of merit) was a pretty clear indicator that your true ideal is actually communism, no matter how you wish to rebrand it to make is sound "different." It's the same, but different;-)
I don’t trust some “mystic authority.” In CONTRAST to all Marxist regimes, I trust only the LOCAL assembly of egalitarians, as discussed at https://www.pdrboston.org/genuine-democracy-what-is-it.
So you only want the "local" government to confiscate the fruits of MY labors and redistribute them to those whom THEY believe deserve them more then me or my own children? How nice. It's still just communism.
Right now, YOU are free to go join (or form) a commune any time you want to. YOU can immediately surrender all control over your OWN property and labor, and hand it to whatever group you trust to do what's best with any of it. This is how you get to test your theory that communism works perfectly so long as it's done "locally."
But perhaps your true utopia places YOU in charge of controlling all of those resources and deciding WHO is worthy of distributions? Maybe you'll decide that because I am more "able" than my neighbor, HIS children should eat heartily while mine go hungry? Or maybe you'll decide that your own children should eat more heartily than mine, because after-al, your family is doing the important work of redistributing the fruits of MY labor?
This is exactly like the carbon freaks who fly around in jets telling everyone ELSE that they're supposed to walk or ride bikes and EAT BUGS for dinner.
Stop trying to rebrand your ideology under false terms. You argument is simply this:
"Communism is wonderful, but it's gotten a bad wrap. It's just needs to be done correctly. If it's failed to produce anything other than grinding poverty and mass genocide in the past, this is merely because it wasn't inflicted "locally" and according to my own dictates."
Debt slavery is not the definition of "free market capitalism." The version of capitalism sold to us, is very different. It's welfare for the already extremely wealthy, enforced by the government who takes our money and hands it over to the wealthiest corporations, while enforcing laws that prevent any of us competing in the free market.
I hardly see how stripping all of us of ALL of our rights to property, our labor, etc., (and handing it all over to a communist government who promises to distribute it equally) is going to solve anything. It never has before, and it's been tried many times.
The nice thing about America, is that you are free to join a communist/collective organization if you wish. You can surrender all of your property, and all control over your labor to a central body that will promise to distribute it equally. Good luck with that.
Who advocated "stripping all of us of ALL of our rights to property, our labor, etc., (and handing it all over to a communist government who promises to distribute it equally)"? Certainly not I. I advocate genuine democracy, as i discuss athttps://www.pdrboston.org/genuine-democracy-what-is-it .
I rather like the idea that there are some rights NOBODY can "vote" away from us.
Pure democracy is merely two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for diner. Mob rule has never appealed to me.
I like that idea too. I wrote about this at https://www.pdrboston.org/separation-of-church-state-bogus-id .
Good work.
Thank you. :)
It is the enforcement of the collective ideal that caused vaccine mandates, for the "common good." No thanks.
I'm not sure what your reference to the "common good" is all about. My article never uses that phrase. Please elaborate.
Communism is based upon the premise of the "collective." I might have confused some of your comments with someone else's. If so, my apologies.
Evidently you do not understand what Free Market refers to. All capitalism leads to monopoly. Even Adam Smith understood this.
So what is your alternative to people having the right to "capitalize" upon their own earnings and holdings? How would you prevent this, without preventing people from benefitting from their own earnings, and being able to control their own assets?
What exactly is your alternative to people capitalizing upon their own labors, trades, and property, i.e., this "capitalism" which you do not agree with?
Here is my alternative: https://www.pdrboston.org/egalitarianism . What do you think?
From the link you provided:
"1) Equality (in the "no rich and no poor" and "from each according to ability, to each according to need" - "
So what do I think? I think you're a communist and you're afraid to use the word and just be HONEST about what you're advocating for. You're trying to make it sound so fair ("equal"). You're avoiding just telling the truth, which is that you fully embrace communism and all of it's most fundamental tenets, including wealth redistribution, i.e., taking MY shit away from me and giving it to someone whom you've decided has less "ability" to take care of themselves than I do.
So exactly WHO do you trust to "equally" redistribute (enforce) your utopian world where the fruits of MY labor will be redistributed to someone else, someone YOU believe has less "ability" but more "need" than I have? GOVERNMENT CONTROL is the only mechanism by which you will ever enforce such an ideal. You must trust government very much.
What you're proposing is communism, although you want the majority (the mob) to "democratically" deprive me of the fruits of MY labors, and give it to someone else - because "according to their need" they don't have the "ability" to earn it themselves.
Your plan for utopia requires GOVERNMENT collectors who will redistribute MY earnings, having decided I have less "need" than someone else. Looks EXACTLY like the Soviet Union model, or maybe Venezuela's.
No thanks.
I assume you SELL dinner to your minor children.
What a pathetic argument for communism. Your argument is that the government should be given the power to starve MY progeny by confiscating the fruits of MY labor and giving it to someone else's family, because this other family has less "ability" or because their "needs" are greater than those of my own family.
Your presumption that parents have no interest in feeding their own children, and that therefore, the state must take possession and control over all resources AND our children in order to feed MY children, is silly. We ALREADY have laws criminalizing the act of starving our OWN children. We already owe a duty of care to OUR children, and it's a criminal act to deprive them of basic needs like food. We do NOT need communism (incorrectly re-branded as "egalitarianism") in order for OUR OWN children to be fed.
And the fact is, before the government started the communist welfare programs (which only led to broken and fatherless homes, due to the incentivization of single motherhood, which then led to extreme poverty in the inner cities) the % of income VOLUNTARILY given to charity was 10 times what it is now.
My children are NOT the government's property. They are not YOUR property. They do NOT belong to the government. I have my own incentives (starting with love) to make sure they don't starve to death before they are able to support themselves. Just because there are parents out there who don't care enough to feed their own children, does NOT mean the government has the right to rob my children of the resources I would otherwise have provided them.
I know of a working single mother who can barely scrape by BECAUSE OF the taxes she's forced to pay. She informed me there's a couple on welfare living next door, (but doing quite well, the real father has a great career) but who refuse to get marry because that mother is getting tons of public benefits in exchange for pretending she can't "remember" who got her pregnant, and remaining unemployed. So while the hard-working mother struggles to pay taxes that go to the couple next door, the welfare mom lives high on the hog and doesn't have to work.
According to "need?" You want government to redistribute wealth according to THEIR values? Government will decided who has the "ability" and who's needs are greater? Government confiscate and control all resources and then decide what to do with all of it - allocating however they see fit?
And your idea that this is a "democracy" is incorrect. It's a representative REPUBLIC, wherein there are fundamental rights which the mob is NEVER supposed to be able to "vote" away.
In a pure democracy, you have two wolves and one sheep voting on what's for dinner. Even if the election rigging could be prevented, it would always inevitably lead to a "working class" of sheep-slaves who are regularly sheered - "cuz they have the 'ability' " - and "cuz the others have greater needs."
Egalitarian means equal RIGHTS not equal OUTCOMES. You're a communist who believes the government should guarantee equal outcomes for all. The closest your ideal form of government (which has been tried MANY times) has even come to producing equal outcomes, is profound poverty of MOST, and decadent riches for the GOVERNMENT to enjoy, due to the fact the government controls all resources. I guess you don't believe that absolute power - absolutely corrupts, every freakin time. Well it DOES.
Nice nonsequitur
Have you ever considered the possibility that a truly free market leads to competition, which means monopolies (which are NOT maintained via government intervention, i.e., fascism on pretense of collective good) can be crushed by the little people?
The only way to effectively shut down competition (from the little guys) is for the government to get involved in protecting these massive monopolies via subsidies, i.e., "too big to fail" bailouts, and other grants, basically choosing the winners and losers with our tax dollars - which were stolen from us on pretense of "the common good" or "collective" good, or "general welfare" clause.
We are sometimes upset with what we believe is the result of "free-market capitalism" when the reality is, we have NOT been living under any such system. We have been living under a fascist system, (government controlled by the monopolies) which is justified and supported with the ideology of the "collective good." The "collective good" means that government controls and limits our ability to choose what to do with the fruits of OUR labors, and government gives those fruits to others on pretense that these monopolies will do what's best for us.
GOVERNMENT is growing these monopolies by choosing who will never have to face competition in a truly 'free market' system. And what is the argument for shutting down the competition? COMMON GOOD. There's no way to fix any of this by insisting that it's the "free market" or "capitalism" causing the problem of monopolies. It's government handouts to their buddies in business causing the monopolies, NOT "free market capitalism."
Yes I have considered the possibility. I wrote my thoughts about it athttps://www.pdrboston.org/mom-pop-capitalism . What do you think?
ooops. https://www.pdrboston.org/mom-pop-capitalism