What about the land the house sits on and that is surrounding it? Is there a difference between urban land ownership and rural land ownership? I'll follow up those questions with...which current or past economic socialist model are you most aligned with?
- What about the land the house sits on and that is surrounding it? Is there a difference between urban land ownership and rural land ownership?
The answers to these questions are best to be deduced from the goal of eradicating parasitism. So it can happen that all the land can be nationalised - but leased to families and individuals for symbolic sums, for centuries. As it happens in China. And such a land can be, and is, very profitably used. On the other hand, even in dogmatic socialism in Yugoslavia 1946, you could own the land under your house, and the house yard, - as my family did, - but the government puty restrictions on what you can do on it to an absurd degree, and patently with nothing to do with conbating rentiering.
So, it looks like the key issue is : Can you hold the state accountable? History shows us official declarations are not worth the paper they're written on: it all depends on who can do what to who, and who is ready to do what. More nebulously, but also more basically: Can your society have 'a culture' / a social 'ecology,' that would crush any subversion and keep state apparatus accountable?
And, to find the answer to that question for a specific country, it's recommendable to read the anthropologist Emmanuel Todd: "The Explanation of Ideology: Family Structure and Social Systems" and "Lineages of Modernity"..
- Which current or past economic socialist model are you most aligned with?
The author of the tweet I linked to, the chairman of the American Communist Party, - well I've followed him enough to know his answer: He would tell you that he's most aligned with what works best in the given circumstances.
In that he would be echoing the communist doctrine that each country has to develop its own form of socialism, with "its own characteristics."
And if we were to press him to tell us about his personal feelings, he would probably say his favorites are those that have corresponded with the highest rates of economic, social and cultural development: be they in Stalin's USSR, or Yugoslavia or China under Mao and Deng. And if you were to express surprise that periods of catastrophes such as those under Mao and Stalin can be held with fondness, he would probably point out to studies, like those of Grover Furr (on Stalin), Mark Tauger (on the Holodomor) and Godfree Roberts (on China ).
P. S. And if you were to ask what does he think is the right kind of socialism for his country in the _present_ circumstances, or in a hypothetical near-future where communists would take over, he would answer that ahead of us are decades of turmoil and struggle. One can realistically hope for a communist takeover of power only in the distant future. And surely not through elections, but through armed struggle.
Socialism is the trick they get you to go back into feudalism (communism).
It should be more accurately called a process of domestication.
I think it was Samo Burja who observed that Communists are people who are uncomfortable with freedom and want to go back to being serfs.
Quoting you: You have no right to your property because that’s the primary thing Communism is abolishing.
Let's see if you censor this.
Hold my beer: https://twitter.com/InfraHaz/status/1699967557535486154
What about the land the house sits on and that is surrounding it? Is there a difference between urban land ownership and rural land ownership? I'll follow up those questions with...which current or past economic socialist model are you most aligned with?
- What about the land the house sits on and that is surrounding it? Is there a difference between urban land ownership and rural land ownership?
The answers to these questions are best to be deduced from the goal of eradicating parasitism. So it can happen that all the land can be nationalised - but leased to families and individuals for symbolic sums, for centuries. As it happens in China. And such a land can be, and is, very profitably used. On the other hand, even in dogmatic socialism in Yugoslavia 1946, you could own the land under your house, and the house yard, - as my family did, - but the government puty restrictions on what you can do on it to an absurd degree, and patently with nothing to do with conbating rentiering.
So, it looks like the key issue is : Can you hold the state accountable? History shows us official declarations are not worth the paper they're written on: it all depends on who can do what to who, and who is ready to do what. More nebulously, but also more basically: Can your society have 'a culture' / a social 'ecology,' that would crush any subversion and keep state apparatus accountable?
And, to find the answer to that question for a specific country, it's recommendable to read the anthropologist Emmanuel Todd: "The Explanation of Ideology: Family Structure and Social Systems" and "Lineages of Modernity"..
- Which current or past economic socialist model are you most aligned with?
The author of the tweet I linked to, the chairman of the American Communist Party, - well I've followed him enough to know his answer: He would tell you that he's most aligned with what works best in the given circumstances.
In that he would be echoing the communist doctrine that each country has to develop its own form of socialism, with "its own characteristics."
And if we were to press him to tell us about his personal feelings, he would probably say his favorites are those that have corresponded with the highest rates of economic, social and cultural development: be they in Stalin's USSR, or Yugoslavia or China under Mao and Deng. And if you were to express surprise that periods of catastrophes such as those under Mao and Stalin can be held with fondness, he would probably point out to studies, like those of Grover Furr (on Stalin), Mark Tauger (on the Holodomor) and Godfree Roberts (on China ).
P. S. And if you were to ask what does he think is the right kind of socialism for his country in the _present_ circumstances, or in a hypothetical near-future where communists would take over, he would answer that ahead of us are decades of turmoil and struggle. One can realistically hope for a communist takeover of power only in the distant future. And surely not through elections, but through armed struggle.
:)
Saying something is democratic and socialist at the same time is like saying something is hot and cold at the same time.