Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > World History Forum > American History
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

American History American History Forum - United States, Canada, Mexico, Central and South America


Closed Thread
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old November 23rd, 2012, 03:40 AM   #21
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Jun 2012
From: USA
Posts: 4,015

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gudenrath View Post
You yourself made it about contemporary politics, the conflicts of the 20th century and about an exact political system when you made your OP specifially about communism. Collectivism has a long history, and isn't necessarily about a political system or any kind of government, but communism doesn't have a long history and are exactly about all those things.



Indeed.
Communism is such a simplistic idea that the term did not have to exist for the idea to exist. The idea is for the powers that be to control property rights, and decide who gets the fruits of one's labor. This was always a very bad idea. I am proud that America historically rejected that form of government, for we became the most powerful nation in history, a true hyper-power.
Virgil is offline  
Remove Ads
Old November 23rd, 2012, 04:18 AM   #22

Naomasa298's Avatar
Pepperonius Maximus
 
Joined: Apr 2010
From: T'Republic of Yorkshire
Posts: 20,301

Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil View Post
Communism is such a simplistic idea that the term did not have to exist for the idea to exist. The idea is for the powers that be to control property rights, and decide who gets the fruits of one's labor. This was always a very bad idea. I am proud that America historically rejected that form of government, for we became the most powerful nation in history, a true hyper-power.
In other words, Communism means whatever you want it to mean in order to support the ridiculous premise you propose in the OP.
Naomasa298 is offline  
Old November 23rd, 2012, 02:13 PM   #23
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Jun 2012
From: USA
Posts: 4,015

Quote:
Originally Posted by Naomasa298 View Post
In other words, Communism means whatever you want it to mean in order to support the ridiculous premise you propose in the OP.
I did not realize the idea of a communist rejection/Thanksgiving was so unheard of on Historum. It is an idea that has been around for many years in the US, and has been thought about by millions of Americans I would guess.

As for the definition, I find that all of the definitions include ownership of the means of production, i.e. raw materials and tools. I find it difficult to believe that owning the means of production would not involve control of property rights and deciding who gets what. How would owning the means of production not involve those things?

As for the importance of looking at historical instances of socialism wherever we may find them, I want to point out that Friedrich Hayek believed that socialism was atavistic, meaning it was a "a primitive step back to our hunter intincts, not a scientific leap forward." Following his logic, socialism must have been tried many times over in more primitive times. Since it has often not been in use, I would think that it must have been rejected many times in the past. As for the Pilgrim example, they certainly were faced with primitive circumstances.

This thread is an exploration of Hayek's belief. Here is a link.

Atavistic Socialism Isegoria
Virgil is offline  
Old November 23rd, 2012, 02:14 PM   #24
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Jun 2012
From: USA
Posts: 4,015

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spartacuss View Post
All I'm going to say about this thread is that I find it hilarious. When those who are grumpy over the results of our just passed election realize the sun still rises each day, these backdoor entries of their displeasure will subside. The op really pooped his pants on this one.
Please do not make personal attacks. You will only serve to derail my thread. Ty.
Virgil is offline  
Old November 23rd, 2012, 02:27 PM   #25

Sam-Nary's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jun 2012
From: At present SD, USA
Posts: 2,673

Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil View Post
Communism is such a simplistic idea that the term did not have to exist for the idea to exist. The idea is for the powers that be to control property rights, and decide who gets the fruits of one's labor. This was always a very bad idea. I am proud that America historically rejected that form of government, for we became the most powerful nation in history, a true hyper-power.
America is presently in decline and we are being ovetaken by China. We have sent most of our manufacturing jobs to China,allowing China to grow in strength and is rapidly overtaking the US...

So in a sense, to quote some Communist philosophers, "we have sold them the rope to hang us with."
Sam-Nary is online now  
Old November 23rd, 2012, 04:04 PM   #26
Lecturer
 
Joined: May 2012
Posts: 420

Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil View Post
Communism is such a simplistic idea that the term did not have to exist for the idea to exist. The idea is for the powers that be to control property rights, and decide who gets the fruits of one's labor. This was always a very bad idea. I am proud that America historically rejected that form of government, for we became the most powerful nation in history, a true hyper-power.
The company I'm working for was founded by five people who formed a partnership. Four of them held their shares long enough to become billionaires but just two of them were the driving force to make it the success it was.

The company is a capitalistic success story. According to your defintion, it's also deeply socialist in the sense that five people agreed to pool their labour and share the profits between them.

Why did they do so? None of them could or wanted to start a compnay alone. They needed other people to get the initial workload done and none of them had the capital to hire employees.

The same with a hundred people arriving in a wilderness. If you need to clear the forrest to get arable land until planting time and build shelters and barns plus getting in the harvest before the winter starts, then it makes sense to get yourself some partners to share the work. Because if you fail, you, your wife and your children die a slow, miserable death in winter.
Hans321 is offline  
Old November 23rd, 2012, 04:18 PM   #27
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Jun 2012
From: USA
Posts: 4,015

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hans321 View Post
The company I'm working for was founded by five people who formed a partnership. Four of them held their shares long enough to become billionaires but just two of them were the driving force to make it the success it was.

The company is a capitalistic success story. According to your defintion, it's also deeply socialist in the sense that five people agreed to pool their labour and share the profits between them.

Why did they do so? None of them could or wanted to start a compnay alone. They needed other people to get the initial workload done and none of them had the capital to hire employees.

The same with a hundred people arriving in a wilderness. If you need to clear the forrest to get arable land until planting time and build shelters and barns plus getting in the harvest before the winter starts, then it makes sense to get yourself some partners to share the work. Because if you fail, you, your wife and your children die a slow, miserable death in winter.
I do not think I am defining things that way, but you do have a point. I have read that Hayek himself was arguably quite similar in thinking to the very people he was criticizing, i.e. the socialists. I would emphasize the right to own property, and the rule of law. When property rights become non-negotiable, you are off to a good start.
Virgil is offline  
Old November 23rd, 2012, 05:20 PM   #28

Gudenrath's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: May 2012
From: Denmark
Posts: 2,510
Blog Entries: 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil View Post
Communism is such a simplistic idea that the term did not have to exist for the idea to exist. The idea is for the powers that be to control property rights, and decide who gets the fruits of one's labor. This was always a very bad idea. I am proud that America historically rejected that form of government, for we became the most powerful nation in history, a true hyper-power.
Yes, and of course it was because the US rejected communism. I can feel my brain melting and coming out of my ears following your posts. The level of debate is simply mind numbing.
Gudenrath is offline  
Old November 23rd, 2012, 05:28 PM   #29

Comet's Avatar
Jedi Master
 
Joined: Aug 2006
From: IA
Posts: 7,743
Blog Entries: 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil View Post
Communism is such a simplistic idea that the term did not have to exist for the idea to exist. The idea is for the powers that be to control property rights, and decide who gets the fruits of one's labor. This was always a very bad idea. I am proud that America historically rejected that form of government, for we became the most powerful nation in history, a true hyper-power.
First, I don't think you really understand the difference between collectivism and communism. As Gudenrath pointed out, you are comparing a way of life to a political system. I would like for you to explain your views on both. Maybe that will help connect your OP a little better than what it is.


Second, the United States didn't reject any form of government other than a monarchy as far as I remember. Again, I don't think you quite understand the difference between collectivism and communism. I think once you've explained yourself more (about the differences that is) it will be a lot easier to read where you are coming from.

As to the rest of your posts, it extremely obvious that you are having a very difficult time supporting your conclusions because the content of your original post is an idea that has no historical backing. Outside of one article, what else do we have on this very unique subject? It might be a good idea to start supporting your opinions with something more concrete.
Comet is offline  
Old November 23rd, 2012, 05:46 PM   #30
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Jun 2012
From: USA
Posts: 4,015

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gudenrath View Post
Yes, and of course it was because the US rejected communism. I can feel my brain melting and coming out of my ears following your posts. The level of debate is simply mind numbing.
Sorry, I forgot that socialists can only argue by ridicule, since nothing socialists believe ever pans out. I pity the fool who cannot have an intelligent discussion. Surely you are the "useful idiot" I have heard about.
Virgil is offline  
Closed Thread

  Historum > World History Forum > American History

Tags
marxism, pilgrims, proof, thanksgiving, work


Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Jamestown, Pilgrims and the American Experience rmpalange American History 5 August 5th, 2011 06:10 PM
Indians respond differently to the Pilgrims' arrival Nick Speculative History 33 November 27th, 2009 12:51 AM
Marxism Commander Philosophy, Political Science, and Sociology 9 December 15th, 2007 12:07 PM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.