Posted on 11/22/2017 6:02:47 AM PST by Beowulf9
When we point out that neither Socialism nor Communism have ever worked, its supporters simply smile indulgently and say, “Well, that’s just because the right people haven’t tried it yet.”
On that count, they are just plain wrong. Communism had its purest test in the earliest days of American history, and was an abysmal, abject, utter failure. And it was tried by a small group of people who were committed to each other, devoted to God, and were hard-working and industrious. If this crew couldn’t make it work, nobody’s ever going to make it work.
(Excerpt) Read more at barbwire.com ...
Interesting article.
About 1848 the NYT began publishing weekly bits of Marx’s papers, and this continued for many years!
The NYT Editor at that time, a well-known, fanous even, “American”!
God knows how many more Americans read and were influenced by these “readings”!
I can think of at least one who surfaced during the years after that time!
The descriptions I read in History classes as a kid always did make the pilgrim’s villages seem to operate like some kind of commune; That whole sort of outfit where everyone had things to contribute, or often many were told what they needed to contribute, but everyone shared alike, and I always wondered if it was really like that. I also wondered if there wasn’t a sort of division of power, where some where made to give more than others, and the decision makers of the group seemed to fare best, because that’s how things always seem to shake out, commune or not. I also wondered if people brooded, and did the bare minimum, and while everyone seemed to work, there was no zeal for innovation and growth... well... because that’s how it is when people think they’re working harder and sharing more than their commune neighbors.
Rush did a great piece on this topic.
Truth is very inconvenient to the communistic swampocrats who today rule over what’s left of the American Republic.
I would call what the Pilgrims tried communalism. It can work for small highly motivated groups for a short period of time but it never lasts. The early Christians, as described in the book of Acts, tried this.
The descriptions I read in History classes as a kid always did make the pilgrim’s villages seem to operate like some kind of commune; That whole sort of outfit where everyone had things to contribute, or often many were told what they needed to contribute, but everyone shared alike, and I always wondered if it was really like that. I also wondered if there wasn’t a sort of division of power, where some where made to give more than others, and the decision makers of the group seemed to fare best, because that’s how things always seem to shake out, commune or not. I also wondered if people brooded, and did the bare minimum, and while everyone seemed to work, there was no zeal for innovation and growth... well... because that’s how it is when people think they’re working harder and sharing more than their commune neighbors.
_____________________________
You can’t fight human nature. Humans aren’t like bees or ants who can mindlessly work for the good of the hive. Our intellect gives us the desire to accomplish and achieve individual worth. Progressives are always in denial about human nature.
Don’t hear that tale too often.
I understand your point, and want to agree, but note that the pilgrims failed badly when they tried it, and note that the early Christians lived amid a strong capitalist system - showing that communalism really doesn’t work either.
The only form that does is tribalism, and that barely rises above bare subsistence.
Liberals know communism doesn’t work...It opens up the agenda they do want...LORDS AND THEIR SERFS.....That’s their end game...That was communism in its purest form...Democrat,liberals progressives and socialists want THAT WORLD...Why???? They see themselves as the Lords and everyone else as their serf....True utopia on their part,living hell for everyone else....
That's a very good point. Although they were living together communally they were working in a capitalist system and also brought to the group the property and money they had already earned in the capitalist system.
The early Christian's practice was not communism because those who participated in it were allowed to take their contributed property back and leave "the system". Communism doesn't allow voluntary anything--force is its central mechanism.
In the Book of Acts a man and wife sold some property, but withheld part of the proceeds from the Apostles. When confronted by Peter he told the man (in essence) "...you could have taken your property out at anytime, but you have lied to God...". Both the man and his wife died as a consequence of that lie.
The Mormons tried their version of communalism in the late 1800's, calling it "The United Order". That plan failed for the reasons all other socialist experiments fail: Self Interest.
Exactly. They want to remove our weapons so they can't be threatened. They want to kill off most of the world's population so they can have more of the pie.
That was exactly my point which is why I called it communalism to differentiate it from communism - which is a totalitarian political/economic system.
As the Mensheviks, a subset of Bolsheviks, realized: communism only works when capitalism has created enough wealth to redistribute.
As Scott Adams succinctly observed: the Left’s stance on gun control looks to the Right a lot like “get rid of your guns so we can shoot you.”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.