Love this

[Revoltingest]

It's not really a new tactic, to compare ideals of social justice in the U.S. to communism.

Communism & social justice have been bitter
foes whenever a country began heading to
the former. Sacrificing the individual for the
greater good is the source of the conflict.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Communism & social justice have been bitter
foes whenever a country began heading to
the former. Sacrificing the individual for the
greater good is the source of the conflict.

Sacrificing the greater good for the individual has been catastrophic in many cases too. Recall what happened during the pandemic because of the "individual above all" mentality that some had.

 

[Revoltingest]

Sacrificing the greater good for the individual has been catastrophic in many cases too. Recall what happened during the pandemic because of the "individual above all" mentality that some had.

Under capitalism the greatest good is achieved,
all this despite there being imperfection & no
government control of the economy.
Communism & socialism simply have no historical
or current examples of success to compare with
the more successful capitalist countries.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Under capitalism the greatest good is achieved,
all this despite there being no government
control of the economy. Communism &
socialism simply have no historical or current
examples of success to compare with the
more successful capitalist countries.

Our definitions of "greatest good" must be quite different, I guess.

 

[Revoltingest]

Our definitions of "greatest good" must be quite different, I guess.

True dat.
I like liberty, prosperity, clean environment,
peace, scientific advancement, independence,
& bacon.
Your posts suggest wanting more government
control to ensure order.

 

[Revoltingest]

Communism and socialism just aren't as effective of boogeymen as they once were now that many Red Scare tropes are dying off and far-right, fascist politicians are again becoming quite vocal and emboldened.

Some problems with that....
1) It's too common with the left to characterize valid
criticism of communism & socialism as mere meritless
political opposition.
2) Associating valid criticism with the Red Scare is
simply false, & smells of straw. That was a political
movement unrelated to economic analysis & critique.
3) Complaining about un-named far-right politicians
isn't relevant to discussing economics.

 

[Stevicus]

Fair point. I don't have a personal opinion about him and don't know him enough for that but in this case it made sense to me. I've seen some other videos where he said things I disagree with but that's life.

I don't really have anything against the guy. He's entitled to his viewpoint as anyone else - sometimes I might agree, sometimes not - just as it might be with anyone here or I might know in real life. I do think he has a point in that, even if it might be well-intentioned, some of the heavy-handed, sanctimonious brow-beating we see from some on the left might put people off.

I daresay that a lot of what goes on is that, people are justifiably angry and resentful of what we know has happened in our history - gross injustices, abuses of power, exploitation, intolerance, bigotry. I'd like to think that the worst is long behind us and that overall, our society has gotten at least somewhat more enlightened - more or less. We still have a long way to go, but we've made some progress over the centuries. But there's still this underlying bitterness and resentment which doesn't really go away that easy, and oftentimes it's passed from generation to generation. Not everyone feels the same way about it; it seems to be different depending on one's perceptions and background.

So, regarding what Maher touches upon, it seems part of a general process involving society's attempt to resolve what has happened in this country - historically, socially, culturally, politically - but it's not as cut-and-dried as some people would like it to be. And frankly, what Maher is really pointing out here is that, overall, at least when looking at politicians, government officials, and others in positions of influence and authority, they seem to be incredibly poor problem-solvers. Even if people agree as to what the problem is, they can't seem to come up with any workable solutions.

 

[Vee]

I daresay that a lot of what goes on is that, people are justifiably angry and resentful of what we know has happened in our history - gross injustices, abuses of power, exploitation, intolerance, bigotry. I'd like to think that the worst is long behind us and that overall, our society has gotten at least somewhat more enlightened - more or less. We still have a long way to go, but we've made some progress over the centuries. But there's still this underlying bitterness and resentment which doesn't really go away that easy, and oftentimes it's passed from generation to generation.

That is true but being angry at the past won't change it. We can't go back in time. All we can do is learn and not repeat the same mistakes.
Holding on to resentment is toxic and produces nothing.
I have a friend who was a victim of racism growing up. Every time I see her she talks about it. She's told me the same stories several times without even realizing she repeating herself over and over again. All that happened years ago and I tried to tell her to let go and focus on her present life, be joyful. She gets mad at me and starts going on about racism again. In the end that didn't change her past, she's a bitter person and I started avoiding her because it was becoming too heavy for me. This is just a small example, but holding on to the past for anything other than a lesson, doesn't seem to be the best way to live.

 

[Estro Felino]

I don't really have anything against the guy. He's entitled to his viewpoint as anyone else - sometimes I might agree, sometimes not - just as it might be with anyone here or I might know in real life. I do think he has a point in that, even if it might be well-intentioned, some of the heavy-handed, sanctimonious brow-beating we see from some on the left might put people off.

I daresay that a lot of what goes on is that, people are justifiably angry and resentful of what we know has happened in our history - gross injustices, abuses of power, exploitation, intolerance, bigotry. I'd like to think that the worst is long behind us and that overall, our society has gotten at least somewhat more enlightened - more or less. We still have a long way to go, but we've made some progress over the centuries. But there's still this underlying bitterness and resentment which doesn't really go away that easy, and oftentimes it's passed from generation to generation. Not everyone feels the same way about it; it seems to be different depending on one's perceptions and background.

So, regarding what Maher touches upon, it seems part of a general process involving society's attempt to resolve what has happened in this country - historically, socially, culturally, politically - but it's not as cut-and-dried as some people would like it to be. And frankly, what Maher is really pointing out here is that, overall, at least when looking at politicians, government officials, and others in positions of influence and authority, they seem to be incredibly poor problem-solvers. Even if people agree as to what the problem is, they can't seem to come up with any workable solutions.

I love Maher's outspokenness...even when I don't agree with him.
Outspokenness is something I really praise in a person.

Being like an open book to people is what makes this society work. Because of trust.
Mutual trust. Because people can trust other people who are outspoken and open about anything.

Disagreement is normal...but a compromise, an agreement can always be found. Always.

 

[Estro Felino]

Funny...a word I never thought I'd use
to describe Bill. Oh, that video is going
to give some posters the vapors!

Now you understand the expression "tail of straw"?
That's what we call those vapors...

 

[Revoltingest]

Now you understand the expression "tail of straw"?
That's what we call those vapors...

I keep forgetting what that odd expression means.
Meh...no need to know.

 

[Stevicus]

Communism & social justice have been bitter
foes whenever a country began heading to
the former. Sacrificing the individual for the
greater good is the source of the conflict.

Communism believes in social justice. The individual is a vital component to the collective whole, so it would not sacrifice the individual needlessly. The individual's needs are considered as important to the needs of the collective, which requires a content, skilled, educated, healthy workforce. In theory, they didn't really want people to be robots or drones. They wanted them to be educated in political ideals as well, so they could be thinkers, as well as workers, and add their thoughts and ideas to the collective to reach a more ideal consensus. They wanted people to be educated, literate, and politically enlightened. The more educated and thoughtful people there are to work on a problem, the more likely there would be a better solution. That was the ideal, at least.

However, I can recognize that the problem within communism is not because of human nature, but perhaps in the assumption that once someone reaches a certain level of education, they'll just naturally agree with the same things that other "educated" and "enlightened" people believe. That seems to be the common assumption between the communists and the situation outlined by Maher in the video and some of the examples he brought up.

 

[Revoltingest]

Communism believes in social justice.

But the circumstances of prohibiting people
owning property are incompatible. This is
based on socialism turning out so poorly,
but communism being even more restrictive.

And "social justice" comes in many flavors.
Liberty & democracy aren't appreciated by
all. Some prefer a rigid order.
It comes down to personal preference.

The individual is a vital component to the collective whole, so it would not sacrifice the individual needlessly.

This is just an ideal that some attribute
to communism. But where's the empirical
evidence that it occurs when practiced?

The individual's needs are considered as important to the needs of the collective, which requires a content, skilled, educated, healthy workforce. In theory, they didn't really want people to be robots or drones. They wanted them to be educated in political ideals as well, so they could be thinkers, as well as workers, and add their thoughts and ideas to the collective to reach a more ideal consensus. They wanted people to be educated, literate, and politically enlightened. The more educated and thoughtful people there are to work on a problem, the more likely there would be a better solution. That was the ideal, at least.

However, I can recognize that the problem within communism is not because of human nature, but perhaps in the assumption that once someone reaches a certain level of education, they'll just naturally agree with the same things that other "educated" and "enlightened" people believe. That seems to be the common assumption between the communists and the situation outlined by Maher in the video and some of the examples he brought up.

Nothing to add.
BTW, I recognize that Maher's bit is
for comedy, not rigorous analysis.

 

[Estro Felino]

However, I can recognize that the problem within communism is not because of human nature, but perhaps in the assumption that once someone reaches a certain level of education, they'll just naturally agree with the same things that other "educated" and "enlightened" people believe. That seems to be the common assumption between the communists and the situation outlined by Maher in the video and some of the examples he brought up.

Unfortunately, this is not always the case.
There are people I know that are wealthy. And they have a high school diploma, only. But thanks to their business skills, they managed to become wealthy and socially respected.
But they do look down on the less fortunate. They feel superior.
I guess I have a pretty high education, but I don't look down on anybody. I ask bakers, or grocers to use the You form (not the pronoun of courtesy) when they address me.
There are politicians who have a even higher education than me that empathize with the commoners.