Learn Liberty: Dave Rubin Interviewing Deirdre McCloskey: Marxism in Two Minutes

Source: The Rubin Report-

Source:The New Democrat 

As I explained with communism last week and explaining what communism is, the basic definition of communism is that communism is the state owning the means of production in society. Someone who is a hard core Communist believes the state should own and manage the entire economy and that property rights and property ownership, are outlawed. In a true communist state people wouldn't even own their own homes or automobiles. No such thing as small businesses with people owning their own restaurants. All private property including businesses and personal property, would be owned by the national government. This is basically the basic definition of what is called Marxist/Communism.

According to Wikipedia, "Marxism has developed into many different branches and schools of thought, though now and there is no single definitive Marxist theory." Communism and Marxism, has developed into many aspects of a broader political philosophy and we don't know if Karl Marx himself ever went as far and developed his own political philosophy beyond his theories on economics.

When I think of Marxist/Communists today and going back to pre-Cold War is that people who do believe the state should own the means of production in society, but that there political philosophy goes beyond just economic policy. A Communist to me anyway and even so-called Democratic Socialists who perhaps aren't pure Communists and do have some democratic leanings with those leavings being more social democratic and collectivist, than liberal democratic and don't put much if any emphasis when it comes to individual rights and aren't fans of individualism at all, are people who see individualism and personal autonomy as dangerous and selfish. And therefor you need a big centralized national state to make most if not all the decisions for society. And to prevent people from being greedy and to think for themselves. As well as to develop opposition to the state.

My personal definition of a Communist or Marxist/Communist if you prefer, even though I don't believe we'll ever know what Karl Marx thought beyond economic policy, is someone who is anti-individual and pro-collectivist. Someone who is against individualism and pro-statism and collectivism. Sees personal autonomy and individualism as dangerous and believes once you give people the freedom to make their own decisions, they'll end up making bad decisions that the state will end up having to pay for. Or will make great decisions for themselves and end up doing much better than society as a whole which is what Communists view as selfish.

This definition of communism can be applied to more than just economic policy and property rights, but big government in general when it comes to the nanny state as well. But the political correctness movement on the Far-Left and Far-Right, that seeks to eliminate and censor free speech that they disagree with and find offensive. If you're asking me that would be my definition of a Communist. A and to a large extent Socialists in general. Even though Democratic Socialists to tend to be more democratic obviously and a believer in at least some individualism when it comes to private property and the right to privacy, and some personal autonomy.
Source:Learn Liberty

Jason Kuznicki & Anthony Comegna: The Liberal & Marxist Theories of History

Source: Libertarianism.Org-

Source:The New Democrat

With this piece I'm going to separate liberalism where I am on the Center-Left of the American political spectrum, from not just Marxism/Communism, but what's called classical liberalism or what and most other people at least today call libertarianism.

Liberalism or liberal democracy, is about individual rights, equal rights, civil rights, equal justice, equal opportunity and yes limited government. Liberals aren't anti-government which is what a lot of modern Libertarians seem to be today. Liberals just don't want big government running people's lives for them and replace individualism with a big central government. And even using big government to try to tell people what they should think and how they can talk with other people. What language is acceptable and so-forth.

Liberalism is the ultimate color, race, ethnic, and gender-blind society. Because it believes in individualism and people should be treated exactly as that as individuals. And don't believe people should be rewarded or punished based on race, ethnicity, or gender. Unlike Socialists even Democratic Socialists and Communists today, who believe minorities should be rewarded over majorities, because of their race and ethnicity and they would simply argue because European-Americans especially men were rewarded because of their race, ethnicity, and gender in the past. And it's time for racial and ethnic minorities, as well as women of all racial and ethnic backgrounds should be reward based on those factors today.

Whether you want to call them Marxists, Socialists, or Communists, or even Democratic Socialists, Socialists today have very different views from Liberals and don't think liberalism and liberal democracy goes far enough in seeing that the needs of the society and public are met. And don't trust individualism and freedom, opportunity, and even education for the masses, enough to see that everyone's needs are met. And believe you need a big centralized government and perhaps just one government for the entire society, to be used to meet the needs of that masses. And believe that individual freedom and individualism, even the ability for people to think and speak for themselves, as dangerous. Because they see it as the freedom to make mistakes that society will have to pay for. And for the rich will just richer and everyone else will be left behind.

When you're talking about liberalism versus socialism and communism, you're talking about individualism versus collectivism and even statism. Liberals trust educated individuals to be able to self-govern themselves and meet their own needs and be able to take care of themselves. With a limited government to regulate how people interact with each other, but not how we govern ourselves. Socialists and Communists, put their faith in government especially the central state, to see that needs of the masses are taken care and no one is left behind and has to go without. When you're comparing liberalism with socialism, you're talking about individualism and freedom, versus statism.

Source:Libertarianism.Org

Learn Liberty: Professor Howard Baetjer- What is Communism?

Source: Learn Liberty-

Source:The New Democrat

I believe Professor Howard Baetjer gave an accurate definition of communism as short and simple as it was. That communism is the common ownership of the means of production of society. But that can be interpreted in two ways.

One, that government owns the means of production of society. Which is generally how communism has been practiced. Look at North Korea today, look at Cuba up until ten years or so ago. Look at China up until about forty years ago. Look at the Soviet Union of Russia before they broke up. Look at the Eastern European Russian satellites during the Cold War.

Another way to look at common ownership of the means of production of society would be that the individuals themselves would own these things. The workers would own a piece of the company that they work for and you see that in what are called economic cooperatives where each worker literally owns a stake in the company that they work for. There are some economic cooperates ( or co-ops ) in America but this is not a common economic system in America or really anywhere else in the world.

But similar with democratic socialism ( the democratic wing of socialism ) communism is not just an economic idea or philosophy. And if you want to know what communism is and what Communists believe you have to look at Communists themselves and what they believe and look at communists government's in countries where communism is the governing philosophy.

My definition of communism is a belief that the state ( meaning the central government ) should be in charge of society and therefore run society on behalf of the people. That the only way society can be strong is if everyone is strong. Meaning that no one should and would have too much while others live without enough and of course no one should go without enough. That individual freedom and individualism, as well as private enterprise, are looked down upon. That people shouldn't be allowed to own things and create for themselves and instead everything should be shared for the common good of society. That the state should be in charge of everything and that there is no private ownership on behalf of the people to serve the people. And that there is no private dissent and competition that the state should have to deal with. No political opposition and private media.

There really aren't any countries left in the world other than North Korea that is purely a communist state. Even Fidel Castro's Cuba now has private enterprise in it. While the state still clamps down on personal freedom and political opposition. The same can be said about the People's Republic of China. Russia is still around but the Soviet Union is now gone. All the former Russian European satellites are now essentially democratic republics with private enterprise economies. The Socialist Republic of Vietnam now has private enterprise in their economy. And this is simply that communism doesn't work as an economic system and these countries were tired of trying to fund their centralized regimes with so many poor people in their countries and not producing enough revenue for their regimes. 

Source:Learn Liberty

Tom Woods: Christopher Snowden- 'Killjoys: A Critique of The Nanny State'

Source:Tom Woods- This just in: Tom Woods, hates big government! LOL

Source:The New Democrat 

"Christopher Snowdon of London’s Institute of Economic Affairs makes the case against paternalistic meddling in individual decisions." 

From Tom Woods

There isn't really one form of a nanny state or one ideology that backs a nanny state. The nanny state comes from both the Left (and not Center-Left) and the Right. (And not Center-Right) People on the Far-Left who at the very least have communist leanings and see individualism and personal autonomy as dangerous and people who don't share their politics as stupid. And view people in general who at least don't share their cultural values and politics, as stupid. And people on the Far-Right who see certain forms of personal behavior as immoral and offensive to their religious and cultural values to the point that they believe those certain activities should be outlawed. And are also people who believe individualism and personal autonomy at least as it relates to personal behavior are dangerous.

I don't believe any intelligent American on the Left or Right is going to argue that there not only stupid people in America, but a lot of stupid people. People who make such bad decisions that it does affect the lives of others. Drunk driving, would be an example, obesity that drives up the health care costs of other Americans especially because of emergency care that people who eat and drink poorly and don't exercise, end up consuming a lot of emergency care because they can't afford to financially pay for the costs of their consequences from their own bad behavior. And therefor end up passing those expensive health care costs onto healthy Americans.

The question should always be what should be done about it. Do you really want to penalize and even make criminals out of people who only hurt themselves at least in the short-term. Or do you want to hold them personally and financially accountable for their own poor decision-making and not allow for them to pass their health care costs onto healthier intelligent Americans. And I'm not talking about denying people health care simply because they made bad decisions with their own diets. But instead having them pay for those costs either upfront through taxation, or through higher health insurance premiums.

The nanny state coming from the Christian-Right primarily in America, is not about stupid personal behavior at all. But really about certain activities that Christian-Conservatives find immoral and offensive to their religious and cultural values. Whether its gambling, pornography, adultery, adult language, adult music, adult movies, homosexuality, women working out of the home, etc. And unfortunately there are many more examples, but I've given you several. But activities that the Christian-Right would outlaw in America and would put people in jail for doing them if they were ever to come to power, simply because these activities offend their religious and cultural values.

Again, its not a question of whether there are stupid people in America and a lot of Americans who do things that are simply not in their personal interest. As well as activities that don't even come with much of a level of danger, but for whatever reasons aren't for everybody which is why not everybody does those things. The questions are who gets to make the decisions when it comes to their own personal lives and who has to deal with the consequences of their own personal decisions. And as a Liberal because I believe in liberty I come down on the side of the individual. As someone who believes in personal freedom and personal responsibility. Not someone who not only believes in big government, but government big enough to protect people from themselves.