Hobbes (Leviathan 1651- Bellum omnium contra omnes, the condition of man is a condition of war of everyone against everyone), Alexis de Tocqueville (Democracy in America 1835, Democratic Despotism, prefers local forms of government);

- Dr Jordan Peterson and his use of Jungian Archetypes and Animal Group Behavior (Lobsters)- I find relating the society of mankind to animal society to be a useful comparison- Desmond Morris also done this in "The Human Zoo" (excellent) and "The Naked Ape"- Even David Attenborough is good here;

* All political systems are related- some useful commonalities and differences have been useful to me- this isn't a complete list- I'm sure you can come up with some of your own...

- Communism and Capitalism are both systems based on mass industrialism and Classical Liberalism- they both rely on land utility and trickle down economics- they are both globalist in nature- the problem with mass systems (both Patrick Deneen and Desmond Morris comment on the issues with mass society) is they disempower those at the bottom- some would argue that the reason they are at the bottom is because they are less valuable to society- but I would carefully disagree- (what if you just gave the land (means of production) to the families and let them manage it in perpetuity- this was essentially the traditional primogeniture system pre-1500's- but some would call this type of land ownership as fascism- some would say this isn't land ownership in the strickest Liberalist sense)

- Liberalism (Freedom) seems to make assumptions about man's nature and the Liberalist system itself. "Liberalism implies empowerment" of the people. At the same time "the Globalist nature of Liberalism disempowers" the people. Ironic. Perhaps the opposite- Conservative Traditionalism could (also ironically) perhaps be more empowering of the people- because of its less global nature.

* The above reading, thinking, and testing has lead me in unexpected directions and has questioned the orthodoxy of contemporary political thought. I have often been reminded of wisdom- Socrates comment- that his wisdom was based on those that "think they know"- Bohr's comment to Einstein- "what right have you to tell God what to do"- and the warning to those that think they can "improve upon nature"- like a child explaining to their Grandparent.

In answer to the question- Given the blind dogma/ death count/ disregard of families/ insidiousness- Communism is a powerful totem of evil in 2019.

The entire history of man is one big joke- but there have been a few bright sparks in the struggle of those who desire power to reach the top of the ant hill.

Indeed, there is so much to read.

Prof. Tor Hundloe's book, "From Buddha to Bono,"
he covers all the Eastern Philosophies, the
gregarious Greeks and their bequests,
history and the dark ages, a world of discoveries,
Renaissance and Enlightenment, the first ecologists,
the industrial revolution and the birth of economics,
the Romantic era, the New Moderns, Charles Darwin,
inventions and ideas abound, and so forth and so on.
Then there's Ian Robertson's "Sociology." Great reading.
And many more.

I've got the entire collection of Robert Conquest's
books (our greatest Kremlin elucidator) but enough said
for now.

Dear davidf,

You wrote;

“Capitalism in the form it takes in the Scandinavian produces decent societies. Capitalism in the form it takes in some other societies is oppressive.

I'm wondering if you accept it could also read;

“Marxism in the form it takes in the Scandinavian produces decent societies. Marxism in the form it takes in some other societies is oppressive.”

I take you point though about the capacity of Capitalism to be oppressive. It is an inescapable but often ignored fact that the beacon of laissez faire capitalism, the US, has the highest proportion of its citizenry imprisoned than any other country in the world.

mhaze,
>Not just the Venezuelan communists...all communists.

I didn't say communists, I said socialists. The Chavistas are socialists (by the original definition that most self identified socialists now reject) and regard themselves as such. AFAIK they don't identify as communists.

Whether all communists are extremely bad economic managers may depend on the definition of "communists" since China seems like an obvious counterexample. But even if you exclude China, what about Laos? Not a great success, but it doesn't appear to be a great failure either.

>In all the nations that have ever turned their economies over to Marxist theory,
>not one has succeeded. Not a one. The theory is utterly flawed and the
>implementation of the theory always, ALWAYS, exaggerates those flaws.

Of course, and I'd caution against turning economies over to ANY theory, Marxist or otherwise. But if you look at those which have merely been influenced by Marxist theory rather than been turned over, the effects have not been catastrophic and have sometimes been an improvement.

Just to be clear, the above paragraph is NOT an attempt to belittle the flaws of Marxist theory.

>Yes they had some economic problems due to ill-management. But those problems were minor in comparison to now.

I don't dispute that. But he same underlying problems that successive governments have failed to properly address are now some of the biggest contributing factors in Venezuela's economic catastrophe.

>The previous economic problems were on the lines of Venezuela not keeping up with its neighbours.

No, they were much deeper than that. They started out much wealthier than their neighbours, but the boom bust cycle (caused mainly by fluctuating oil prices, and exacerbated by government policy) destroyed their wealth, and it was the poor who suffered most. The Chavistas not only failed to fix the root cause of the problem, but were unwilling to address the more immediate causes. Plus as you know, they implemented policies that weakened the economy even more.

>That you'd try to dismiss these problems as merely a continuum reveals true motive.

Then WTF do you think my motive is?

Posted by Foxy, Tuesday, 1 January 2019 11:00:50 AM

Understandably trends - like Safe Schools, Same-Sex
Marriage, Homosexuality, Feminism, et al, are seen by some
as a threat to orthodoxy, "normality" and "decency," by
which they mean that "normality" and "decency" is -
white, Christian, patriarchal, and heterosexual. Anything
else is suggested as a heresy. And anyone who thinks differently
or disagrees is a Marxist or worse - evil.

Answer- Witch hunts- well- Witch hunts are still going on under Liberal Democracy. Protecting your community from change is a survival mechanism- it can be good and bad- but to whom? and how? Most animal societies are patriarchal, heterosexual, homogeneous. Witch hunts are a tool in the box of politics and can take many forms. Communists try to do the same as the army and smooth out the differences between people so they can focus on the task- this is also good and bad. Ad nauseam.

Leaders care mostly about effectiveness. When their ideologies fail it means they need to be more aggressive- which often creates bigger failures.

Overall I've been impressed by certain comments on this thread- I'm sure you know who you are. Kudos