>I would dearly love to figure out some way to rehabilitate
>the "common"/"commonwealth"/"communal"/"communistic" sort
>of rhetoric for the 21st century. The old idea of "all of
>us ordinary folks working together to free ourselves from
>the damn system," which sounds hopelessly naive now, I guess,
>was a very attractive part of the language of the Left when
>you look back at what was being said in the good old days of
>the '30s to the '48 Progressive Party.
>
>The trouble is, of course, that it can be perverted so
>easily to something really nasty.
Interesting think piece, there.
It may be that the problem has nothing to do with communism, capitalism or socialism.
Group rights and individual rights will always be at odds.
That dynamic is not exclusive to property relations. And the mixing of the two is often a source of trouble. (Perhaps the major source of trouble for Russian-style Marxists.)
So, while you see some abuse of "majority rule" in various situations -- Commie, Nazi, whatever -- my question would be "so what?"
The individual person needs to be protected, no matter what the economic system is. Capitalism, by decimating the core majoritarian underpinnings of society (family, church, etc.), is actually creating a greater respect for the individual worker than any previous system (that we know of; I understand the Pug has some conspiratorial data on Atlantis and Communism).
Ken.
-- If I were an American, as I am an Englishman, while a foreign troop was landed in my country I never would lay down my arms, -— never! never! never!
-- William Pitt
Speech, Nov. 18, 1777