Saturday, October 31, 2009

You're All Commies

communism, republican, democrat, capitalism
Lately, the Republicans have been partying like it's 1954, accusing liberals right and left of being communists. (Being a communist is entirely legal in this country, but I digress.)

The funny thing is, we're all communists. Every last one of us.

Communism is a socioeconomic structure and political ideology that promotes the establishment of an egalitarian society based on common ownership and control of the means of production and property in general.

Doesn't that pretty much describe your family? You don't all produce (earn money), but you all share equally in what is produced, each according to his or her ability, each according to his or her need. Nobody's shorting the baby on diapers because the baby isn't bringing in the benjamins, the baby gets diapers because the baby needs diapers. The wager earner who makes 73% of the family's income doesn't get 73% of the food at dinner, or 73% of the hot water in the morning. Dinner, hot water, heat, electricity are all shared for the benefit of the common good.

We're all communists, people. We just restrict it to people we happen to like or are related to.


  1. Though, don’t tell that to Republicans (ie. the Anti-Commies Task Force). You’ll be picking bits of saliva and exploded brain out of your hair for days.

  2. "The funny thing is, we're all communists. Every last one of us."

    No, we aren't. The fact that we share things doesn't make us communists. Saying that it does robs the word communism of all meaning. Why attack some Republicans for their extremely broad definition of the word, if you are going to come up with one that has even less relation to the commonly held & accepted meaning?

    And your tremendously broad definition doesn't really apply within families, except to a limited extent. In most families, despite sharing some things, individuals retain personal ownership of many other things. You could just as easily, and probably more accurately, view the family as an oligarchy -- or a dictatorship in the case of single parent homes. The parents make almost all the major decisions, control the finances, and dictate most aspects of life for the children.

    So I guess we shouldn't worry if we perceive the government moving toward oligarchy or dictatorship, since we are all oligarchs or dictators.

  3. As much as I hate UNRR's tone, he is correct.

    The standard American family dynamic is more analogous to an Oligarchy and, more crucially, is entirely voluntary. Outside of the bare minimum legal standard of care for children (who are really viewed legally more as posessions with semi-independent liability than as people until Age 18) there is no compulsory obligation to share with them. Parents typically do so because they love their children and are responsible enough to recognize that having children carries with it a whole heap of extra costs and liabilities.

    So I think the question that's much more apt is: why do so few people love the people in their country? (And why do so many of these selfish assholes claim to "love their country" while hating the bulk of it's residents?)

  4. The family analogy is not perfect, but I think it does hold water, up to a point. Perhaps more accurate is not considering the communist family as including the parents and the children, but just the parents. My girlfriend and I make unequal incomes. But from that income, we each share in the responsiblities of paying the bills, and we get the money for the items that we need and want.

    Now, communism does not equal no personal property. Or at least, as most "real" communist. I cannot really speak as to what life was like in the soviet union or china, but I do not think it is correct to call those "communist societies." those are more dictatorial societies.

    In a communist society, the means of society are owned collectively. That could mean a couple of different things. That the factories and such are either owned by the state, or owned by those that work in the factory. However, that does not mean that person property does not exist, or is illegal. People can own there personal property. They can own art, homes, land, etc. What cannot be owned personally are the means of production. businesses, factories, etc.

  5. I see your point in the family analogy ... but my ex-husband took a fairly capitalist approach in our marriage, continually reminding me that because my earnings were so much smaller than his, I was less entitled to the finer things in life, even though he was within his means to afford them for both of us. Obviously, this little political system of his collapsed, but he went on to ressurect it with wife #2, who fulfilled his economic requirements quite well... Humor aside, this type of scenario plays out, I suspect, in many households worldwide.

  6. Interesting concept, Robert. I dig it.

  7. Funny story. My cousin and her husband live in semi-rural Wisconsin and had a baby earlier this year. Husband owns a landscaping business, which is the primary source of income for the family.

    When the baby was born, however, she provided an unexpected source of income for the family. Apparently fresh baby diapers provide a strong enough "human" scent to repel deer and other herbivorous wildlife. In late summer, baby diapers were in high demand as a way for farmers to warn rampaging deer away from their crops. My cousin and cousin-in-law netted about $1 per diaper as a result of this. So for the baby's first few weeks of life, she was actually the #1 wage earner in the family, since there was more demand for deer-repellent at the time than for landscaping.

    I'm not sure if that proves or demonstrates anything, but I think it's a hilarious story. Given the right market conditions, even a baby can fulfill the dictates of the Communist "from each according to his ability" simply by producing a dependable supply of baby shit.

  8. Will you debate Bob Enyart of on the issue of personhood?

  9. I think that "coomunism" and "Capitalism", like religion, are what the beholder thinks.

    In the 1950's I was an army brat, and my father was a counter intelligence officer. He was in charge of 'security' and the apprehension of 'risks' (usually draftees who noticably resented their status as chattel in "The Land of the Free") so my observations on our condition vis a vis the horrors of totalitarianism and communism were not welcome. I was already an avowed atheist (really bad) and I didn't see a lot of difference in our situations. Actually, the 'commies' came out ahead: they wouldn't make me go to Sunday shool and church, plus you got to wear these really neat fur hats.

    Strange how 'socialism' is bad for society at large, but great for a select few of millionaires. And, one has read that under the current state of things, the populace should simply get used to thinking of corperations, must notably the telecommunications industry, as another arm of the gov't.

  10. Will you debate Bob Enyart of on the issue of personhood?

    The hell does that have to do with anything? And I believe the lady already said no way. Quite emphatically, in fact...

  11. @Geds:
    It’s concerning this thread … and apparently, PF has accepted.

    At least my idle curiosity towards what her real name is seems to be settled, now.

  12. Err, scratch that – no, she hasn’t accepted. I really need to brush up on my, you know, reading comprehension. Argh.

  13. Joe: I'm fully aware of the backstory. I didn't know (but still assumed...) that Enyart was cackling away about the fact that no one wanted to argue with his stupidity. I was one of the voices counseling her to avoid Mr. Radio Dipshit.

    Although it's nice to know that Ms. Failure has been elevated to the status of lawyer/blogger...

    My question was, quite literally, "What does that have to do with this thread?" Because, y'know, that has nothing to do with this thread. So I was curious as to why someone would think they should ask about that on this thread.

  14. Sorry to continue the thread hijack, but, from the link: this is 'the personhood initiatives' parting shot...

    * Doug can’t seem to close the deal on a personhood debate: Discussions with Jane Morrison of the Las Vegas Review Journal and a lawyer/blogger who calls herself “Personal Failure” and blogs at both break down when the perspective interviewees realize that they can’t construct enough straw men to debate personhood on Bob Enyart Live.

    Joe: these appear to be two seperate people. We still don't know Ms Failure's (can I call you Personal?) real name. Or at least, I don't.

    I was also glad she declined. Radio is the perfect medium for dishonest debators, especially for the hosts. It would be terribly easy for Enyart to embarrass PF if he is indeed as dishonest as I suspect.

    I'd also like to congratulate PF on her promotion to 'lawyer.'

  15. My kids don't steal from me like Commies do. I serve them. That is the difference. It is about freedom and service vs. coercion and servitude. Ignorance is not bliss, it just means you're ignoring what stares you in the face.


Comments are for you guys, not for me. Say what you will. Don't feel compelled to stay on topic, I enjoy it when comments enter Tangentville or veer off into Non Sequitur Town. Just keep it polite, okay?

I am attempting to use blogger's new comment spam feature. If you don't immediately see your comment, it is being held in spam, I will get it out next time I check the filter. Unless you are Dennis Markuze, in which case you're never seeing your comment.

Creative Commons License
Forever in Hell by Personal Failure is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License.
Based on a work at