I find it surprising that there are people like Loudmouth that espouse Communist principles or derivatives yet claim to be anti-Communist.

A rose is a rose.

But I guess many don't see the links that Locke Liberalism has with Communism.

Loudmouth seems to be well educated and worldly yet seems to have some form of abnormal perceptual astigmatism- perhaps this perspicacity can be attributed to the decline of the university culture- some have said Liberalism fosters a kind of anti-culture.

.

Why Yanks vote on the first Tuesday in November. Well it seems the "voters" were male property owners, and most of them were farmers. On completion of the harvest at the end of October, they had a big shin-dig on the Saturday night, Halloween, before the first Tuesday in November. Next it was in church on the Sunday, praise the lord and all that guff. Then they spent Monday in the horse and cart traveling to the voting place. Perfectly logical.

Later on it helped stop poor whites and Negros from voting, what's changed in Loopy Doopy Land?

CM,

As you write, " .... I guess many don't see the links that Locke Liberalism has with Communism."

No, I don't. Perhaps you could join the dots ?

For the record, I think that Marxist-type socialism, communism, whatever you want to call it, is a bankrupt, Utopian theory which has always been betrayed from the very outset by its implementers, for the simple reason that it is utterly impractical. It has never worked anywhere and its adherents have always resorted quickly to repression, often of its own hitherto loyal supporters, at the same time as their 'unchangeable' blueprint is being changed to accord with their power-realities.

But an adherence to notions of equality and justice has never been the monopoly of the extreme-'Left'. Where would you stand on those issues ?

Joe

Hi Joe,

The following might be of interest - I came
across this in my readings on John Locke:

" The philosophic justification for revolution in
modern times can be traced back to the "social
contract" theorists, John Locke (1632-1704). Locke
held that people had created government for the sole
purpose of guaranteeing their freedom. If a
government violated this trust, the contract was
broken, and the people had the right to rebel in
order to restore their freedom. The leaders of the
American Revolution were deeply influenced by
Locke's writings, and the Declaration of Independence
echoes his theory in the specific justification of a
people's right to revolt:

"We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men
are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator
with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life,
liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these
rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving
their just powers from the consent of the governed...
That whenever any form of government becomes destructive of
these ends it is the right of the people to alter or abolish
it and to institute new government, laying its foundation
on such principles and organizing its power in such form
as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and
happiness".

" Unlike a coup d' etat - the restricted use of force to
replace one set of leaders with another,
usually consisting of military officers -
a revolution generally involves mass
violence. There are certain conditions that give rise to such
a situation as we know. Several factors have been
identified - where a revolution under those conditions is a
distinct possibility - from widespread grievance, rising
expectations, blockage of change, loss of legitimacy,
military breakdown."

Sociology 101. Interesting ay?

Hi Foxy,

So CM is asserting that the American Revolution was communist ?

I just can't see that :)

Of course, like you, I'm sure, I would have supported the rights of the Americans to revolt against unrepresentative British rule, and set up their own republic, given that the implicit [Lockeian] contract between the British Crown and the American people had been betrayed. But I'm not sure how that makes us supporters of communism.

But I'm sure CM can join the dots. Patience with some of our colleagues is the key :)

Joe

Dear Joe,

Karl Marx is another interesting social thinker.
His influence has been immense. Millions of people
accept his theories with almost religious fervor,
and modern socialists and communist movements owe
their inspiration directly to him. Yet it is
important to realize, however, that Marxism is not
the same as communism.

Marx would probably be dismayed at many of the practices
of communist movements , and he can't be held
responsible for policies pursued in his name a century
after his death. Even in his own lifetime, he was so
appalled at the various interpretations of his ideas by
competing factions that he declared, "I am not a
Marxist".

Of course Karl Marx's views, like those of anyone else,
were deeply influenced by the social environment. Marx wrote
in England at a time when a large and impoverished working
class laboured for a handful of wealthy capitalists who
owned the factories and other means of production. The
working conditions were awful. Marx assumed that this
situations would inevitably lead to revolution.

But Marx did not forsee many of the changes that later
occurred in industrial societies, such as the growth of a
large middle class. No revolution has ever occurred in an
advanced industrialised society.

Joe, it will therefore be interesting to see what happens
in the United States if Trump gets re-elected. There are
so many grievances that are being ignored, and where
his administration is not paying any attention to minorities -
or COViD pandemic, or racial problems, will a revolution
take place as many are predicting no matter who wins if
nothing is done about these problems immediately.

The US is a ticking timebomb.