Private property can make others envious and cause them to seize power to grab the property for themselves, or just to ensure that the other no longer have it. So, the way to prevent that, is to abolish the state.
Private property is natural
Because nature is a place to die from starvation/thirst/exposure. So if, by investing energy, a being manages to find food (energy), it will protect that energy from beings tyhat did not. Example:
The cheetah: runs incrediblyfast – spending lots of energy – to catch a prey, then drags that catch into a tree out of reach of hungry hyenas.
The squirrel: hides nuts for eating during hard cold times
Parental love: parents are protective of their own genes
Love: partners are protective of THEIR partner (maybe, because the partner may help reproduce the genes)
Bees sacrfice their lives to protect the nest (sometimes callled hive), not out of generosity, but out of parental love. The queen is the only fertile one in the nest, all the other bees are related (share the same genes). Dawkins wrote about this, from the perspective of biology – genes, inheritance
Of course, ancoms (in the FB group Pure Anarchist Philosophies) discredit anarcho-communism by spectacularly, deliberately, even violently not understanding this.
https://youtu.be/dlXqFgqOviw The Soviets may not have achieved true communism (statelessness) (it was a vanguard state), but they tried as hard as they could to achieve true socialism. At least Lenin and Stalin did; but later on, statist inertia probably crept in, accompanied by the desire to maintain power.
Because socialism is so unnatural. It is impossible to achieve true socialism, they had to resort to the most brutal tactics to impose it. In nature, survival rewards private property. The cheetah drags its freshly caught prey into a tree, out of hyenas’ reach. (Ironically, I think it would also be out of vulture’s reach, since they probably need for their food to lie on the ground.) The squirrel burries its nuts.
My thought in the “Great Greta” problem: (or should we speak of the Svante Thunberg problem? Coz its her Antifa-dad who’s behind all this.)
On the one hand, she has been a spent force from day one, coz all the time, the world has been divided into
* maniacs that wish to destroy life on earth (aka the left), and
* life on earth.
So one insincere little actress from Sweden won’t make any difference, with her appeals to convince politicians to take harsher measures against the population.
[Even appeals to stop punishing the population will have no effect.
OTOH, she is influencing other teenagers that would also like to be famous/notorious, so unless we take measures now, the planet is going to hell in a hand-basket: life on earth (the only known planet able to house – advanced – life) will die out. Meaning; all life on the entire bleeming universe will die out. Never accuse the left of not being ambitious.
This was my reply to a socialist’s post on Youtube, I don’t recall which movie it was, or the name of the dumbass to whom I replied. But she claimed that the reason that socialism has never been able to show its true potential, was that big business sabotaged it. Leaving aside that big American businesses actually funded the Soviet revolution (and – I’m sincere when I write this by enabling establishment of a socialist regime, it actually sabotaged socialism), and the Soviet experiment showed how utterly impossible socialism was and still is, here is my reply:
Wow! Gobsmacked by the paranoia. I’ve heard people claim “that was not real socialism” before, usually in relation to Nazism/USSR.
The claim that “it’s never been allowed to show its true potential” is a new one.
Actually, since socialism is scientifically (according to Hawking’s definition of science: observe and hypothesize, then see if observation confirms hypothesis) defined as transferring power from society to the state, socialism is only to the benefit of the politicians, not the people. So the revolutionaries that impose socialism, only ever serve their own interests. Which is why most socialists are on the left:
* the right sacrifices the peoples’ interests to big business.
* the left sacrifices them to their own petty pleasures.
The problem with socialism when it attempts to be an economic ideology is the calculation problem. When the state (not the people) owns everything, it cannot sell any resources to itself, so prices cannot propagate to the consumer level. So scarcity of resources cannot be reflected in the prices, moderating consumer demand.
The reason socialism fails as the political system it was intended as, is because it needs to be (violently) imposed.
Capitalism is not an ism, it simply is what people do when you leave them alone.
And how can capitalism hinder socialism, when the planners from the USSR needed to copy prices for toothbrushes etc. from western capitalist countries? Due to the socialist calculation problem making price determination impossible under communism.
Let’s give them the benefit of the doubt. Perhaps China’s communist regime sincerely thought they were doing well to shield the people from anything nasty.Like the result of ongoing breeding, leading to China now having a problem of overpopulation.
In dpirellte of thst the amount of Chinese that smoked was grester than there were Americans, period. Because under communism the only pleasures available were smoking and sex.
Just watched (part of) the debate with Richard Wolf and Gene Epstein https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=YJQSuUZdcV4 , where Wolf claimed that WW2 was caused by capitalism (!)
Wolf is probably one of those socialists that claims Hitler was not a real socialist. Hitler had expressed admiration for Stalin’s 5-year plan, only exceeded by the Nazi’s own 5-year plan.
By extension, Stalin (whose country also played a big role in WW2) must not have been a socialist, if only because his 5-year plan was almost as good as Hitler’s.
Then Marx (whose communist manifesto played a significant role in the founding of the USSR) can also not have been a socialist.
Is Wolf himself a socialist?