to me “you can’t have communism and billionaires”
in reply to “you cant have both democracy and billionaires”
sounds more like “but what if i was the billionaire?”
than “and thats the way it should be!”
now that you got that out of your system, perhaps you could think about the topic and explain what you meant to actually say instead of calling us names?
we’ll wait.
please take your time, don’t rush it. we know coming up with an actual argument is hard.
They serve one function extremely useful to you and to the country, so useful that, if there were no Communists, we would almost be forced to create some. They are a reliable litmus paper for detecting real sources of danger to the Republic.
Communism is so repugnant to almost all Americans, when they are getting along even tolerably well, that one may predict with certainty that any social field or group in which the Communists make real strides in gaining members or acceptance of their doctrines, any such spot is in such bad shape from real and not imaginary social ills that the rest of us should take emergency, drastic action to investigate and correct the trouble.
Unfortunately we are more prone to ignore the sick spot thus disclosed and content ourselves with calling out more cops.
Heinlein had some ideas, but never consistent ideas.
Starship Troopers was sort of a love letter to fascism, and also the idea of power armor. Most of that book is gushing over how cool power armor could be.
Stranger in a Strange Land was rather anti-authoritarian, but there were some hints at something darker in a few places.
Time Enough for Love is time travel incest porn.
And all of Heinlein’s ranting about Communism, which in his day was mostly Leninism.
Take Back Your Government is a nonfiction book about how and why to get involved in politics, primarily at a volunteer level. Lots of it is a historical artifact about how political campaigns worked in the 1940s, but it’s also got some great glimpses into Heinlein’s ideas about governance and one’s individual responsibility to get informed and involved.
Some of my favorite bits:
But why be partisan? Why not vote independently, after an earnest scrutiny of the candidates and issues, for the welfare of the people as a whole? It sounds good and it would be very nice if it would work. It would also be nice if pi were exactly 3.000 instead of a bothersome 3.14159 plus.
There are two reasons, one moral and one practical. The practical reason is this: You simply cannot be effective in politics unless you join in the process of compromise and conciliation whereby free men merge little groups into big groups until they accomplish a government. If you are not partisan you are on your own, everybody is out of step but Johnny, and the chances that you can have any effect on how this country is run are 140,000,000 to one against you.
…and…
We need never be afraid of the vote of informed Americans. It is only the ignorant voter we have to fear, ignorant politically, no matter how fine his house or how expensive his schooling. Such people have never experienced democracy; they have merely enjoyed its benefits. It is hard to explain what democracy is; it is necessary to participate in it to understand it.
The former Berlin businessman I referred to earlier told me that he blamed his own group, people with the time and the money and the opportunity to know better, for what happened to Germany. “We ignored Hitler,” he said. “We considered him an unimportant fellow, not quite a gentleman, not of our own class. We considered it just a little bit vulgar to bother with him, to bother with politics at all.”
They thought of the government as “They.” The only possible route to a clear conscience in politics is to accept political responsibility, either as an active member of the party in power or as an equally active member of the loyal opposition.
…and…
If you believe that laws forbidding gambling, sale of liquor, sale of contraceptives, requiring definite closing hours, enforcing the Sabbath, or any such, are necessary to the welfare of your community, that is your right and I do not ask you to surrender your beliefs or give up your efforts to put over such laws. But remember that such laws are, at most, a preliminary step in doing away with the evils they indict. Moral evils can never be solved by anything as easy as passing laws alone. If you aid in passing such laws without bothering to follow through by digging in to the involved questions of sociology, economics, and psychology which underlie the causes of the evils you are gunning for, you will not only fail to correct the evils you sought to prohibit but will create a dozen new evils as well.
did you somehow read my comment as condoning the national part? if so, please explain how you came to that conclusion or simply do everyone a favour and re-read what it says
heinlein was opposed to communism and flirted with fascist ideas, coming to the conclusion that when he was talking about communism it was most likely some form of nationalized subtype isnt that far off. hence the ending
National socialism is not just left wing nationalism, which probably covers most nationalized subtypes of communism though, it’s Nazism, which is fascist and far right, not at all left.
my point is: if he disliked communism, but flirted with fascism, perhaps he was never really talking about international communism at all but only ever conceived of the notion of a nationally limited socialism. or nazism if you like, but needless contractions of words wont get you anywhere closer to understanding what i am talking about if all you can think about is “gotcha”
you honestly think people turn to communism because they want to become billionaires themself?
I don’t understand how that’s a reply to what you replied to. Did you reply to the right comment?
to me “you can’t have communism and billionaires” in reply to “you cant have both democracy and billionaires” sounds more like “but what if i was the billionaire?” than “and thats the way it should be!”
hence my comment.
You’re an idiot if you think that’s what I said.
now that you got that out of your system, perhaps you could think about the topic and explain what you meant to actually say instead of calling us names?
we’ll wait.
please take your time, don’t rush it. we know coming up with an actual argument is hard.
Nah. You can’t comprehend basic English.
–Robert A. Heinlein, Take Back Your Government
Heinlein had some ideas, but never consistent ideas.
Starship Troopers was sort of a love letter to fascism, and also the idea of power armor. Most of that book is gushing over how cool power armor could be.
Stranger in a Strange Land was rather anti-authoritarian, but there were some hints at something darker in a few places.
Time Enough for Love is time travel incest porn.
And all of Heinlein’s ranting about Communism, which in his day was mostly Leninism.
Take Back Your Government is a nonfiction book about how and why to get involved in politics, primarily at a volunteer level. Lots of it is a historical artifact about how political campaigns worked in the 1940s, but it’s also got some great glimpses into Heinlein’s ideas about governance and one’s individual responsibility to get informed and involved.
Some of my favorite bits:
…and…
…and…
i agree, national socialism is not the way.
long live international solidarity.
Drop the national part. Socialism has lifted hundreds of millions of people out of poverty in the 20th and 21st centuries.
did you somehow read my comment as condoning the national part? if so, please explain how you came to that conclusion or simply do everyone a favour and re-read what it says
Your comment is talking about national socialism in response to a different comment talking about individual American communists, right?
I gotta say, I don’t really see the connection you made, either.
heinlein was opposed to communism and flirted with fascist ideas, coming to the conclusion that when he was talking about communism it was most likely some form of nationalized subtype isnt that far off. hence the ending
National socialism is not just left wing nationalism, which probably covers most nationalized subtypes of communism though, it’s Nazism, which is fascist and far right, not at all left.
Holy shit, I didn’t even think of the possibility that this person didn’t realize National Socialist = Nazi.
In a fucking politics board, no less.
and what makes you think i dont know that?
my point is: if he disliked communism, but flirted with fascism, perhaps he was never really talking about international communism at all but only ever conceived of the notion of a nationally limited socialism. or nazism if you like, but needless contractions of words wont get you anywhere closer to understanding what i am talking about if all you can think about is “gotcha”
Both of our comments were pretty straight forward. You seem confused.
confusion is one thing, replying “drop the national part” to “national socialism is not the way” is another.
have a nice day :3
Yeah, they are definitely two different things.
You as well ✌️