Should Marxist Own Mansions?

Is this good or bad for Marxism?

 

When in Rome,
Now after something like a proletariat revolution I'd say probably not UNLESS the plan would be to take advantage of modern technology and 3d print them for all if desired, do things like devote NASA tech to asteroid mining and eliminate scarcity for the whole of the commons,,, THEN not so horrible though the funds could have been better utilized in developing social outreach programs like the black Panthers had done in poor communities and building stronger grassroots support for the movement

 

Everybody should have housing or nobody should have housing. No one needs mansions.

 

Honestly, Marxism almost always resulted in a group of people who owned everything: I'm amazed people still believe it's a workable ideology.

 

Granted that's basically how every ism goes,,,

 

Those at the apex of any system always have the best of everything by permission or otherwise.

 

All animals are equal but some are more equal.

Cuban leader's granddaughter rents mansion in Havana for $650 a night | Daily Mail Online

 

Oh, so she doesn't OWN IT, but is merely RENTING it - slight difference there, which has just destroyed entirely the whole criticism levelled at Marxists per se and the lady in question in particular !!!

 

mansions and ownership is a perspective that has nothing to do with the universe. not a matter of should or shouldn't though.
the point isn't to put a ceiling on the top, but to keep anyone from falling through the bottom. this is a common mistake made at both extremes.
and "more equal" isn't something the universe has any skin in either. humans are just so silly thinking they're somehow more entitled then other species.
own what we build, yes, or build for others is ok too, but the land is for all creatures, and not something to waste trying to impress each other.

 

the invisible garments of one ideology are much the same as those of another, proving nothing.
comparisons are meaningless. the kind of world we all have to live in has far more meaning then labels, or the behavior of one individual.
regardless of marx or adam smith or anyone else.

 

Ultimately it is the quality of the individual that matters, and that makes the system work.

Marxism has produced men like Che Guevara, who as a minister in the cuban government, lead a spartan and simple life avoiding luxuries on matter of principle and was critical of such privileges when given to him. He even came out to the sugarcane fields to cut cane and performed heavy labor activities so as to ramp up production as a manual worker, though he had no need to do so as a prominent government minister.






Leon Trotsky was an another example of a competent communist administrator who was honest and efficient.People of character and intellect can make even a poor system work, while even a good system can be hijacked by people with nefarious designs.

Stalin , Mao , Pol Pot were the ones who hastened the demise of communism through poor decision-making. I am not supporting communism here, but even the capitalist- democratic systems can fall if they are not run by the right people.

 

The "right people"! This is humanity's ancient curse: the belief that only the "right people" are worthy. Look - we are trapped on a ball of dirt with nobody else to talk to and spatial and temporal infinity all around us. We need everybody.

On a positive note, Cuban Communism produced - Ubre Blanca! This famous cow's milk production was not exceeded until a Carolina cow Blackstar Lucy set the current world record in 1998. You might not like Communism, but how can you not like Ubre Blanca? She was udderly wonderful.

 

Well I am a Marxist/Leninist Communist, but no I don't particularly like cows, since I don't like milk, although I do eat roast beef and make my own beef stew.

 

As a Marxist/Leninist Communist, what is your perspective on Aleksandr Isayevich Solzhenitsyn?

 

Beria's over-reaction to criticism

 

Do we also need the likes of Nero,Hitler, Himmler, Pol Pot, Mussolini and so on!

Nixon was chucked out of office after he was caught unethically snooping on his political opponents using government resources.

There are obviously corrupt men in democratic structures too, who had made the headlines when caught. Many however go scotfree having successfully swindled the public tax money and government resources for their private uses, even if harmful to the larger interest.

By the " right people " , I mean ethical people of character and intellect who can do justice to the duties of the offices they are assigned to.

 

Personally, while I think such people exist I really don't see there being enough to fill the jobs let alone be of a character to want to.

We need AI to hurry up and intervene on our behalf.

 

AI in the wrong hands can also be detrimental, just like any other technology. It can be clandestinely redesigned or engineered with loopholes to serve vested interests.
New technologies like drones are increasingly being used for warfare as well.

 

I'm envisioning a sort of sandboxed Futurama-styled "Head in a jar", something without a thumb that could push buttons BUT could at least analyze data from a collective input derived by the people as a means to generate a sort of consensus on a "way forward" for the humans in the room / polichickens to initiate as public policy rather than the traditional methods of corruptible committees and such (Or even corporate lobbyist-swayed representative) which have probably been the biggest failing on the part of the various iterations of marxism (And frankly most other isms) that have manifested (Other than the one where most of these "movements" have been adapted as mere vehicles to sway populist voters and such such as Adolph who details in the prologue to "his book" how he despised the socialists he saw yet appreciated how malleable they were when given promises of hope for a brighter future etc.)

 

then let the State and local Tax deduction ceiling of $10G stay on the books.