Communism and Islamism, Holding Hands

[Leif Roar]

Like stealing, er, "nationalizing" land,

Except, of course, that the land reforms in Venezuela is not nationalizing land but redistributing it to new private owners. One might question the right of these reforms, but they're not particularly communistic - that would be for the State to own the land and let farmers work in state-controlled farm collectives.

 

[Ziggurat]

Except, of course, that the land reforms in Venezuela is not nationalizing land but redistributing it to new private owners. One might question the right of these reforms, but they're not particularly communistic - that would be for the State to own the land and let farmers work in state-controlled farm collectives.

The point isn't so much who ends up with the land at the end (it's not going to actually benefit the poor in either case), but the fact that property rights are essentially being dismantled. Without property rights, capitalism cannot function. And that's very (though not exclusively) communist indeed. Labels are changing, but the underlying leftist ideas are the same (revolution, victimhood, lump sum theory of wealth).

 

[Leif Roar]

The point isn't so much who ends up with the land at the end

For communism, it certainly is.

 

[UserGoogol]

It's not really communism unless you at least pretend to have the property be owned by the collective proletariat. Capitalism is being raped, but Communism is more than just anti-Capitalism.

In that whole post, THAT'S what you find offensive?

It's easier to yell at you than it is to yell at the Venezuelan guy. He's all the way in Venezuela, and you're right here.

Also, Osama Bin Laden is probably just a symbol for anti-American hate, but the Venezuelan probably doesn't subscribe to Bin Laden's specific views on what the alternative should be.

 

[Ziggurat]

For communism, it certainly is.

Correction: for communism, it nominally is. But communism invariably suffers from substitutionism, whereby the party becomes a proxy for the people, and the dictators for the party, so that what is nominally for the sake of the people is in reality for the sake of the dictators.

 

[Leif Roar]

Correction: for communism, it nominally is. But communism invariably suffers from substitutionism, whereby the party becomes a proxy for the people, and the dictators for the party, so that what is nominally for the sake of the people is in reality for the sake of the dictators.

Even if that had been true for the ownership of agrarian land, it doesn't change the fact that a policy of redistributing such land to new, private owners is in no way communism.

 

[Ziggurat]

Even if that had been true for the ownership of agrarian land, it doesn't change the fact that a policy of redistributing such land to new, private owners is in no way communism.

It's a matter of emphasis. Again, I don't think where it was distributed is the important factor in this. Yes, you are correct, the redistribution to private individuals is not communist. But I consider the seizure of the land, not its subsequent fate, to be the important point here. Destroy property rights by such seizures and it doesn't matter who you give the land to afterwards, you're still going to ruin your economy. And regarding the seizure part, it might as well have been communist. But whatever your emphasis, it's undeniably leftist.

 

[Batman Jr.]

But yes, the harder (or smarter, or better) you work, the more you deserve.

Why do you say that?

 

[Leif Roar]

It's a matter of emphasis. Again, I don't think where it was distributed is the important factor in this. Yes, you are correct, the redistribution to private individuals is not communist. But I consider the seizure of the land, not its subsequent fate, to be the important point here.

But there's nothing particularly communist about that either, nor anything particularly leftist. As far as I'm aware, there's no nation anywhere of any political system that does not reserve itself the right to expropriate land, and even capitalistic strongholds use that right for the purpose of laying pipelines, building railroads, creating national parks, building hydroelectric dams and similar.

In short, there is no political "colour" to the act of seizing land in itself, and you have to consider the purpose of the expropriation, which means where the land is distributed is the important factor.

Destroy property rights by such seizures and it doesn't matter who you give the land to afterwards, you're still going to ruin your economy. And regarding the seizure part, it might as well have been communist. But whatever your emphasis, it's undeniably leftist.

Much, if not most, of Northern Europe's farmland was owned by the Catholic church at one point, but was confiscated and then redistributed during the reformation, and during the 19th century the USA redistributed great amounts of land that it had originally granted to Indian tribes. Neither of these seizures was in any way "leftist" (neither were they in any manner "rightist,") nor "might they as well have been communist." I'm also not aware that they had any large detrimental effects to the economies of the time.

 

[Ziggurat]

But there's nothing particularly communist about that either, nor anything particularly leftist. As far as I'm aware, there's no nation anywhere of any political system that does not reserve itself the right to expropriate land, and even capitalistic strongholds use that right for the purpose of laying pipelines, building railroads, creating national parks, building hydroelectric dams and similar.

In short, there is no political "colour" to the act of seizing land in itself, and you have to consider the purpose of the expropriation, which means where the land is distributed is the important factor.

Well and good, as far as it goes. But emminent domain, what most countries use to take private land, generally requires that the land owner be paid the value of the land taken, which is not the case here. Without that, you're engaging in forced wealth redistribution. Which, yes, isn't exclusively communist (wasn't my point), but is right up their alley (my point). And yes, forced wealth redistribution is lefty, and not righty (examples from over a hundred years ago aren't quite relevant, since the political divide wasn't the same that long ago).

 

[Ziggurat]

Why do you say that?

Because it's true. If I work hard and contribute to society, I deserve more than if I sit on my duff and do nothing. Is this not obvious? Is it seriously a point of contention?

 

[Ladewig]

Am I the only one that thinks the photo looks like one of those almost-but-not-quite-realistic photoshop jobs one sees in The Onion?

That was my impression as well. The sign, the man, and the wall all seem to be lit differently.

As for content, a single individual does not make a trend. Captialism, for you to continue to insist that this photo is a sign of something larger is a bit, well, wacky. Do you have any other evidence?

 

[rikzilla]

Lucky that dude wasn't wearing a britney spears T, Imagine the conspiracy theories...

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Oh, rich!

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

now say something dispicable again so I can resume hating you...

-z

 

[rikzilla]

Capitalist,

I work in DC and see this kind of thing alot. I do doubt that it really means anything tho. There are loonies out there who try really hard to be controversial. This guy looks like one of them.

What's really funny about the Capitalist/Communist comment Fool made is that I see anti-Bush rallies in town from time to time, and it's really funny to see all the "Che" and Circle-A t-shirts and signs coming out of the nearest Starbucks with their lattes.

One of these days I'm gonna get that picture and post it here!!

-z

 

[Leif Roar]

Well and good, as far as it goes. But emminent domain, what most countries use to take private land, generally requires that the land owner be paid the value of the land taken, which is not the case here.

What makes you say that this is not the case here? While I don't know much in detail about the land reform in Venezuela, and I haven't been able to find any details from a solid source with a brief web-search, I have also not found any claims that expropriated land is not compensated - except for an aside in a Miami Herald article which mentions that land owners who could not prove title to the land ownership, does not receive compensation - but I think that has to be seen as a special case (in particular as since they can not prove thei have title to their land it's not certain they actually do own it.)

 

[c0rbin]

What does it have to do with the post? There, right before your eyes, is a Venezuelan Communist wearing an Osama bin Laden t-shirt. Whom are you going to believe, your little beliefs or your lying eyes?

I am going to believe that dude's serious paldrins of shoulder and back hair. iAy caramba!

 

[Batman Jr.]

Because it's true. If I work hard and contribute to society, I deserve more than if I sit on my duff and do nothing. Is this not obvious? Is it seriously a point of contention?

The problem is how you didn't want to talk about the unfairness in certain people being able to work less and earn more whether it be for reasons of serendipity, difference in ability, etc. For instance, you cannot compare the conscientiousness of a mentally healthy person with that of someone severely depressed. For the amount of effort it takes the former to do his/her job, it might take the same for the latter to just force himself/herself out of bed. Then we can get into quadriplegics...

You were, in your previous message, stating the refutation to your own position, and then practically saying that it simply doesn't matter to you.

And though you say what you believe is "obvious," it simply isn't. There's too much nuance involved for any one doctrine to be called the "obvious" choice.

 

[Batman Jr.]

Furthermore, it must be noted that capitalism doesn't really even hold your "contribution" principle as its central tenet. It really has nothing to do with it. What it follows at its heart may be described thusly: the more money you can get voluntarily forked over to you, the more you deserve.

 

[Tony]

There, right before your eyes, is a Venezuelan Communist wearing an Osama bin Laden t-shirt.

Any proof this guy is a communist?

 

[Tony]

Lucky that dude wasn't wearing a britney spears T, Imagine the conspiracy theories...

Britney and Che, together at last.