Posted on 01/12/2012 9:31:54 AM PST by Paladins Prayer
While discussing on The View recently how North Korean heir Kim Jong Un enjoyed the luxury of being sent to a Swiss boarding school, Whoopi Goldberg said the following, “This is what happens with communism. It’s a great concept; on paper it makes perfect sense. But once you put a human being in power, it shifts. We saw it in Russia; we’ve seen it all over the world.”
Not surprisingly, this earned Goldberg some criticism. Yet, to be fair, her sentiment is a common one. It’s that supposedly enlightened, nuanced opinion stating that communism works great in theory — it’s just the practical application that’s problematic. And while Goldberg seems to accept that man’s nature will always ensure communism’s unworkability, others entertain a corollary of the above opinion: that the ideology could work if only the right people were at the helm.
The first thing we need to debunk is the on-paper-validity myth. Could you imagine a scientist, after observing a theory consistently fail when applied over decades, insist that it works on paper? Unless he was a climate-change warmist, he’d be laughed out of his field.
(Excerpt) Read more at thenewamerican.com ...
I wonder, maybe this should be taken as a teachable moment and someone should talk to Ms. Goldberg. “It’s a great concept; on paper it makes perfect sense. But once you put a human being in power. . .” or generalized to “but once it’s implemented in the real world with real human beings. . .” is a conservative critique of every leftist project: Communism, Keysianism, the War on Poverty, the War on Drugs, lowering lending standards to encourage minority home ownership, . . .
Their obvious solution is to demand/grab more control of the ignorant masses.
It is their thought process, which will never change. That is why the communist/socialists/liberals/progressives/Marxists can only be suppressed.
They are beyond help, they do not have the capacity to be educated out of communism disguised as "liberalism and progressiveness." They can not or refuse to see the destructive nature of the communism disguised as "liberalism and progressiveness" they promote.
What the supporters of communist "liberalism and progressiveness" will destroy is the very nation that gave them their freedom. They will complain, demonize, belittle and protest when opposed but only preserving this Republic in it’s original context will continue to give them their freedom to complain and protest against it.
They will not stop destroying this nation of their own accord.
The only way to preserve freedom for American Citizens in this Republic is suppression of the communist supporters. "Taking the high road" is rapidly becoming something to be put on the shelf for a while. It is now time to step up, get in their face and call them worthless communist bastards undeserving of a place in this Republic.
If some semblance of our former Republic can be restored they will require constant observation. The communists will revert to demanding total control faster than can be understood by rational thought as rational thought is not understood by communists.
The supporters of communist "liberalism and progressiveness" will NEVER be normal freedom loving American Citizens. It is my understanding of history that not that long ago American Citizens put freedom before communism and put communist traitors in jail.
Worked once, ought to work again.
.
Solzhenitsyn said the same thing. Collectivism is an economic model which ignores the other sciences and, most importantly, human psychology, which inevitably seeks to reward self as a result of work done.
As such it is a lie, a delectable, beguiling lie. Since it can’t ever work, it has to be propped up by more lies, and then murder.
In Practice, They're not.
Communism doesn’t work because it goes against our survival instinct. We’re programmed with an individual consciousness, not a group/hive mind.
In order for “true communism” to work, a person would need to remove their wanting for individual goals and work strictly for the betterment of the group. To accomplish that would require the removal of the word “I” from the language - to remove the individual consciousness.
That’s not going to happen. Ever.
Actually, it is precisely the opposite. Leninism called for the Dictatorship of the Proletariat which was the authority with complete control. This actually worked quite well in reality. It exerted COMPLETE CONTROL.
The next phase was supposed to be the dissolution of the state. This is the part which doesn’t even sound correct in theory. Who believes that a complete dictatorship is going to “dissolve away”? Completely hair-brained. When it did not happen in the Soviet Union (Surprise, Surprise, Surprise!) the excuse was given that the existence of the non-Communist states was interfering. Thus, the ideological justification for taking over the world in order to provide the proper climate for the “inevitable” progression of the Communist state.
Would it be racist to note that, as a measure to reduce labor costs, slavery works pretty well “on paper” ?
Poop works on paper.
Communism = poop.
Even on paper human decision making by the few are the deciding force - therefore it does not even work on paper as people are integral to the systems success. If you take people out of the system there is no decision making and no system.
Small point of contention: Theories don't exist on paper. Hypothesis exist on paper, a Theory is what you get when you test your hypothesis by experimentation and either confirm or disprove it. The Theory then stands until experimental data can be generated to overturn it.
If what you "put on paper" isn't working (like the USSR) you need to revise it, not keep doing the same thing all over again.
*** Whoopi Goldberg said the following, “This is what happens with communism.***
Same with a Rube Goldberg contraption. Great on paper. So great he used to have a Sunday cartoon strip of his contraptions.
Couldn’t agree more. Cogently argued.
T_R_D is correct. This can be a 'teachable moment' on several levels.
Goldberg's instant analysis can be used as a beginning point of examination of the reasons why America's Founders soundly rejected any such arrangement when they declared themselves free from the tyranny of a monarchy and asserted their Creator-endowed individual rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of "happiness."
Some ideas to explore include these:
1. Did the Jamestown Colonies experiment with "a community of goods" and its failure, according to Gov. Bradford's Diary allow them to come to the same conclusion as Goldberg?
2. Did their "unique idea" that individuals are just that--individuals--and that each individual's rights come from a Creator, not from any other individual, whether a king, a Parliament, or any other human power, and that those rights are, therefore, unalienable, contribute to their decision for a "We, the People's" written constitution to limit individual grant of powers to elected officials?
3. What part did their understanding of the fallibility and weaknesses of human nature play in their decision?
Several days ago, poster "spok," made a comment about the differences between the right and left in American politics. Below is a post from that thread:
"Conservatives accept human nature as it is, while the left pretends it’s otherwise. Right vs. left is the difference between reality and fantasy. And when the lefts’ illusions are destroyed, there’s nothing left but brute force and thuggery.
"Spok" speaks here of "conservatives" who understand the Founders' views on human nature, the tendency of humans to abuse power once it is delegated to them, which is the reason for the Constitution's strict and certain limitations on that power.
". . . it would be a dangerous delusion were confidence in the men of our choice to silence our fears for the safety for our rights. . . it is jealousy and not confidence which prescribes limited Constitutions to bind down those whom we are obliged to trust with power: that our Constitution has accordingly fixed the limits to which and no further our confidence may go. . . . In questions of power then let no more be heard of confidence in man but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution." - Thomas Jefferson
This Jefferson quotation is cited in Dr. George Carey's essay on "The Founding Fathers' Views of Human Nature--Critical to the Structure of the Constitution," pp. xxvii of "Our Ageless Constitution."
Carey points out that both Hamilton and Madison, in the 85 essays (THE FEDERALIST) explaining the Constitution to the people, provided "the clearest and most comprehensive picture of the Framers' views regarding human nature."
"In every government on earth is some trace of human weakness, some germ of corruption and degeneracy, which cunning will discover, and wickedness insensibly open, cultivate and improve. Every government degenerates when trusted to the rulers of the people alone." - Thomas Jefferson
As to today's so-called "progressives," who dream of a Utopia where they will "redistribute" away the legitimate earnings of some in order to buy power from others in the society, perhaps today's generations might consider the words of Samuel Adams:
"Is it now high time for the people of this country to explicitly declare whether they will be free men or slaves. It is an important question which ought to be decided. It concerns more than anything in this life. The salvation of our souls is interested in this event. For wherever tyranny is established, immorality of every kind comes in like a torrent, it is in the interest of tyrants to reduce the people to ignorance and vice.” - Samuel Adams
And:
“The utopian schemes of leveling and a community of goods, are as visionary and impractical as those which vest all property in the crown. These ideas are arbitrary, despotic, and, in our government unconstitutional.” - Samuel Adams
I can always make better decisions in a moment for myself and by extension decisions that will be better for those around me then any committee can who is down the street.
Example: I am a farmer. The Collective says, "grow wheat!" Problem is, my fields are flooded. On the ground decision would be to plant rice or some other water loving item. But I can't do that. The Collective said to grow wheat.
So either I plant wheat and watch the seed rot in the ground or argue with the Collective. Even supposing that they allow arguing it is going to take time and time is something you don't have when you are farming.
One way or another even assuming the best of all worlds there is over a 90% probability that I am not going to be growing any thing that year.
I would be better off being a peasant, at least my overlord would make a quick decision. Committees take forever to decide if they should have sandwiches or rolly-polly for lunch.
It just does not work because of the fluid nature of life.
Goldberg has opened up a real “teaching moment,” as another poster pointed out above. Perhaps some with larger “podiums” for expression should take advantage of it—for the sake of youth!!!
Slavery works quite well “on paper” and otherwise - for the slave owner.
Similarly, Communism works quite well “on paper” and otherwise - for those in charge. For the “slaves” they own - and in the Communist economic system you are either a ‘master’ or a ‘slave’ - it doesn’t work out quite so well.
communism only works when there is a gun being held to your head. =P
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.