Improvisations on the meaning of "Freedom".

[*Ördög*]

*Freedom is Conformity*
/Mrs. Betty Bowers, America's Best Christian/
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lA18NFrMv6E>
~~~

There are certain words in English which become completely twisted away
from their actual meanings due to being hijacked by far-right and
religious fundamentalist political propagandists.
I'd call that crime against good semantics.

The word *Freedom* is certainly not the only one. The same goes for the
words *cancel* and *woke* for instance!
It seems these words are now bereft of their original meanings.
Hallelujah! MAGA rules the Anglophone-Universe.

--
Ördög
*LIBERTÉ*
*EGALITÉ*
*FRATERNITÉ*
*SOLIDARITÉ*

[Dhu on Gate]

"Freedom's just another word for nothin' left to lose..."

Dhu


--
Je suis Canadien. Ce n'est pas Francais ou Anglaise.
C'est une esp`ece de sauvage: ne obliviscaris, vix ea nostra voco;-)

[Oleg Smirnov]

*Ördög*, <news:su1oii$v76$1...@dont-email.me>

> There are certain words in English which become completely twisted away
> from their actual meanings

Not only in English it is so.

> due to being hijacked by far-right and
> religious fundamentalist political propagandists.

No, not only due to the right-wingers.

> I'd call that crime against good semantics.

Which would be too maximalist.

Words are naturally becoming 'fetishized'.

> The word *Freedom* is certainly not the only one.

Anyone who'd learn the etymological origin of the word 'freedom'
(not only in English, in many languages it's similar), would find
it's not as nice as in the modern [leftist] meaning.

[Dhu on Gate]

'Freedom ain't worth nothin', but its Free.

[Fran]

On 11/02/2022 5:46 am, Oleg Smirnov wrote:
> *Ördög*, <news:su1oii$v76$1...@dont-email.me>

>> The word *Freedom* is certainly not the only one.
>
> Anyone who'd learn the etymological origin of the word 'freedom'
> (not only in English, in many languages it's similar), would find
> it's not as nice as in the modern [leftist] meaning.

Hmmmmmm. From observation, I strongly suspect thaat the word 'freedom'
in a political context is much more used by raging hard right/neo
fascists than lefties. eg the freedom convoy in Canada.

[Dhu on Gate]

I believe it was President "W" who coined the term "Freem" for us Masses.

[*Ördög*]

Fran

> Oleg Smirnov
>> Ördög

>
>>> The word *Freedom* is certainly not the only one.
>>
>> Anyone who'd learn the etymological origin of the word 'freedom' (not
>> only in English, in many languages it's similar), would find it's not
>> as nice as in the modern [leftist] meaning.
>

Strangely it is NOT the political left that is mis/abusing this word.
Here comes the hard right claiming to have absolute monopoly on the
concept of freedom...mostly the freedoms to discriminate, abuse, and
disenfranchise others solely for their own personal pleasure and benefits.

They interpret it a free pass to do anything and everything they like in
complete disregard to the possible harm it causes to others.

And that is why most rational people with healthy minds (i.e. the
political hard right is by this qualifier automatically excluded) well
understand that one's freedom ends where someone else's begins. That is
why humans have evolved as a social species and not as lone preditors
like some other species have.

> Hmmmmmm. From observation, I strongly suspect thaat the word 'freedom'
> in a political context is much more used by raging hard right/neo
> fascists than lefties. eg the freedom convoy in Canada.

Precisely!
Using the concept of personal freedom to harm others directly or
indirectly is a sign of a nasty mental affliction...predatory egotism/
aggression often against those who have no defences at all is the exact
opposite of what a society praising freedom looks like.

[Oleg Smirnov]

Fran, <news:su48d1$nde$1...@dont-email.me>

In a political context, 'freedom' became a well-worn word within
liberal thoughts, and in the [North] American use, Liberals are more
associated with Leftists.

In more original meaning, liberty connotes more like "freedom from
[despotic] restrictions", and the supporters of the "freedom convoy"
seek to claim their protest is against unreasonable restrictions.

[Oleg Smirnov]

*Ördög*, <news:su4lq3$kdj$1...@dont-email.me>
> Fran
>> Oleg Smirnov

>>> Anyone who'd learn the etymological origin of the word 'freedom' (not
>>> only in English, in many languages it's similar), would find it's not
>>> as nice as in the modern [leftist] meaning.
>>
> Strangely it is NOT the political left that is mis/abusing this word.
> Here comes the hard right claiming to have absolute monopoly on the
> concept of freedom...mostly the freedoms to discriminate, abuse, and
> disenfranchise others solely for their own personal pleasure and benefits.
>
> They interpret it a free pass to do anything and everything they like in
> complete disregard to the possible harm it causes to others.

The fact is, the very original meaning of 'freedom' included the
freedoms to discriminate and abuse some "disenfranchised" others.
The word 'freedom' developed its meaning in contrasting free people
with unfree people. If one excludes the latter from the context,
then it's no longer clear what 'freedom' really means.

[Rod Speed]

On Fri, 11 Feb 2022 17:24:52 +1100, Oleg Smirnov <os...@netc.eu> wrote:

> Fran, <news:su48d1$nde$1...@dont-email.me>
>> On 11/02/2022 5:46 am, Oleg Smirnov wrote:
>>> *Ördög*, <news:su1oii$v76$1...@dont-email.me>
>>
>>
>>>> The word *Freedom* is certainly not the only one.
>>>
>>> Anyone who'd learn the etymological origin of the word 'freedom'
>>> (not only in English, in many languages it's similar), would find
>>> it's not as nice as in the modern [leftist] meaning.
>>
>> Hmmmmmm. From observation, I strongly suspect thaat the word 'freedom'
>> in a
>> political context is much more used by raging hard right/neo fascists
>> than
>> lefties. eg the freedom convoy in Canada.

> In a political context, 'freedom' became a well-worn word within
> liberal thoughts,

Thats wrong too with countrys that just got their independance since the
war.

[Fran]

On 11/02/2022 5:27 pm, Oleg Smirnov wrote:
> *Ördög*, <news:su4lq3$kdj$1...@dont-email.me>
>> Fran
>>> Oleg Smirnov
>
>>>> Anyone who'd learn the etymological origin of the word 'freedom' (not
>>>> only in English, in many languages it's similar), would find it's not
>>>> as nice as in the modern [leftist] meaning.
>>>
>> Strangely it is NOT the political left that is mis/abusing this word.
>> Here comes the hard right claiming to have absolute monopoly on the
>> concept of freedom...mostly the freedoms to discriminate, abuse, and
>> disenfranchise others solely for their own personal pleasure and
>> benefits.
>>
>> They interpret it a free pass to do anything and everything they like in
>> complete disregard to the possible harm it causes to others.
>
> The fact is, the very original meaning of 'freedom' included the
> freedoms to discriminate and abuse some "disenfranchised" others.
> The word 'freedom' developed its meaning in contrasting free people
> with unfree people. If one excludes the latter from the context,
> then it's no longer clear what 'freedom' really means.

That isn't a 'fact' supported by the etymology given in 20 volume Oxford
Dictionary.

[Fran]

On 11/02/2022 5:24 pm, Oleg Smirnov wrote:
> Fran, <news:su48d1$nde$1...@dont-email.me>
>> On 11/02/2022 5:46 am, Oleg Smirnov wrote:
>>> *Ördög*, <news:su1oii$v76$1...@dont-email.me>
>>
>>
>>>> The word *Freedom* is certainly not the only one.
>>>
>>> Anyone who'd learn the etymological origin of the word 'freedom'
>>> (not only in English, in many languages it's similar), would find
>>> it's not as nice as in the modern [leftist] meaning.
>>
>> Hmmmmmm.  From observation, I strongly suspect thaat the word
>> 'freedom' in a
>> political context is much more used by raging hard right/neo fascists
>> than
>> lefties.  eg the freedom convoy in Canada.
>
> In a political context, 'freedom' became a well-worn word within
> liberal thoughts, and in the [North] American use, Liberals are more
> associated with Leftists.

Maybe in the US but the US is uniquely weird when it comes to politics,
political jargan and how to usurp prefectly valid words and make them
socially unacceptable.

>
> In more original meaning, liberty connotes more like "freedom from
> [despotic] restrictions", and the supporters of the "freedom convoy"
> seek to claim their protest is against unreasonable restrictions.

The 'freedom' convoys/marches are full of fruitcakes, loons and strange
bed fellows with disparate aims and goals. I've yet to see any claims
out of the various convoys/marches that make sense in mainstream society.

[*Ördög*]

It was written by Fran:

/snip/

>> The fact is, the very original meaning of 'freedom' included the
>> freedoms to discriminate and abuse some "disenfranchised" others. The
>> word 'freedom' developed its meaning in contrasting free people with
>> unfree people. If one excludes the latter from the context, then it's
>> no longer clear what 'freedom' really means.
>
> That isn't a 'fact' supported by the etymology given in 20 volume Oxford
> Dictionary.

Would those who throw around this now severely weaponized word the most
in the Anglophone Universe (i.e. far right and religious loons and
conservative capitalist libertarians) all adhere strictly to the Oxford
Dictionary's definitions ??????????

I have my strong doubts.

--
Ördög - 👹️ - The newsgroup Devil at your service.

[*Ördög*]

It was written by Fran:

> Oleg Smirnov
>> Fran
>>> Oleg Smirnov
>>>> Ördög

>>>
>>>>> The word *Freedom* is certainly not the only one.
>>>>
>>>> Anyone who'd learn the etymological origin of the word 'freedom' (not
>>>> only in English, in many languages it's similar), would find it's not
>>>> as nice as in the modern [leftist] meaning.
>>>
>>> Hmmmmmm.  From observation, I strongly suspect thaat the word
>>> 'freedom' in a political context is much more used by raging hard
>>> right/neo fascists than lefties.  eg the freedom convoy in Canada.
>>
>> In a political context, 'freedom' became a well-worn word within
>> liberal thoughts, and in the [North] American use, Liberals are more
>> associated with Leftists.
>
> Maybe in the US but the US is uniquely weird when it comes to politics,
> political jargan and how to usurp prefectly valid words and make them
> socially unacceptable.
>>
>> In more original meaning, liberty connotes more like "freedom from
>> [despotic] restrictions", and the supporters of the "freedom convoy"
>> seek to claim their protest is against unreasonable restrictions.
>
> The 'freedom' convoys/marches are full of fruitcakes, loons and strange
> bed fellows with disparate aims and goals. I've yet to see any claims
> out of the various convoys/marches that make sense in mainstream
> society.

Yes rabid rightard loons love to flock to this kind of events. But!

These "freedom convoys" are financially supported, organised and
effectively run by employer groups and mega rich hard right donors from
the US.

*Exposing The Motivations Behind Canada’s Trucker Protest*
/The Young Turks/
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dHvew2fTEN0&ab_channel=TheYoungTurks>

"The small group of Canadian truck drivers that are protesting the
country's vaccine mandate are still causing trouble and have blocked the
Ambassador Bridge that connects Windsor, Ontario to Detroit, Michigan.
The "Freedom Convoy" includes a very small minority of Canadian truck
drivers who refuse to get vaccinated as well as far-right activists and
business owners. Ana Kasparian and special guest David Doel of the
Rational National discuss on The Young Turks.

"Canadian protesters have impeded access to the busiest international
crossing in North America again Tuesday, escalating tensions as
frustration over demonstrations against Covid-19 rules continues to roil
the nation.

After idling trucks and vehicles snarled roadways in major Canadian
cities over the weekend, "Freedom Convoy" drivers hindered travel Monday
at the Ambassador Bridge that links Windsor, Ontario, and Detroit.
Canadian-bound traffic was still shut down Tuesday morning, Michigan
officials tweeted, while US-bound traffic was flowing with limited bridge
access, Windsor Police and 511Ontario tweeted."

"Canadian protests against vaccine mandates, Covid-19 restrictions and
the Liberal government of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau have captured
attention in the US and abroad -- and prompted a flurry of
misinformation, including a false claim that was promoted by prominent
podcaster Joe Rogan and on Fox.

The protests involve a minority of Canada's truck drivers, some far-right
activists and a variety of other citizens. The demonstrations began in
late January as a "Freedom Convoy" of trucks and other vehicles. The
convoy then turned into an ongoing demonstration in the Canadian capital
of Ottawa, whose mayor declared a state of emergency on Sunday. It has
also sparked protests elsewhere and inspired plans for a similar convoy
in the US."

Read more HERE:
<https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2022/02/08/americas/canada-trucker-protests-
covid-tuesday/index.html>

--

[Fran]

On 12/02/2022 12:57 pm, *Ördög* wrote:
> It was written by Fran:
>
> /snip/
>
>
>>> The fact is, the very original meaning of 'freedom' included the
>>> freedoms to discriminate and abuse some "disenfranchised" others. The
>>> word 'freedom' developed its meaning in contrasting free people with
>>> unfree people. If one excludes the latter from the context, then it's
>>> no longer clear what 'freedom' really means.
>>
>> That isn't a 'fact' supported by the etymology given in 20 volume Oxford
>> Dictionary.
>
> Would those who throw around this now severely weaponized word the most
> in the Anglophone Universe (i.e. far right and religious loons and
> conservative capitalist libertarians) all adhere strictly to the Oxford
> Dictionary's definitions ??????????

Agreed but regardless of that Oleg's statement of 'fact' is not
supported by my dictionary.

[Fran]

Yes, I'd heard something along those lines of where financial backing
was coming from.

[Oleg Smirnov]

Fran, <news:su71u5$14h$1...@dont-email.me>

> On 11/02/2022 5:24 pm, Oleg Smirnov wrote:
>> Fran, <news:su48d1$nde$1...@dont-email.me>
>>> On 11/02/2022 5:46 am, Oleg Smirnov wrote:
>>>> *Ördög*, <news:su1oii$v76$1...@dont-email.me>
>>>
>>>>> The word *Freedom* is certainly not the only one.
>>>>
>>>> Anyone who'd learn the etymological origin of the word 'freedom'
>>>> (not only in English, in many languages it's similar), would find
>>>> it's not as nice as in the modern [leftist] meaning.
>>>
>>> Hmmmmmm. From observation, I strongly suspect thaat the word 'freedom' in
>>> a political context is much more used by raging hard
>>> right/neo fascists than lefties. eg the freedom convoy in Canada.
>>
>> In a political context, 'freedom' became a well-worn word within
>> liberal thoughts, and in the [North] American use, Liberals are more
>> associated with Leftists.
>
> Maybe in the US but the US is uniquely weird when it comes to politics,
> political jargan and how to usurp prefectly valid words and make them
> socially unacceptable.

The US-leading 'west' has to adapt to the American trends anyway.

>> In more original meaning, liberty connotes more like "freedom from
>> [despotic] restrictions", and the supporters of the "freedom convoy"
>> seek to claim their protest is against unreasonable restrictions.
>
> The 'freedom' convoys/marches are full of fruitcakes, loons and strange bed
> fellows with disparate aims and goals.

It may be, but it still doesn't change the basic fact that they protest
against what they perceive as excessive restrictiveness, hence they
employ the "freedom" term.

> I've yet to see any claims out of the various convoys/marches that make
> sense in mainstream society.

The Atlanticist political mainstream had made 'freedom' a big word,
especially in foreign policies, and then the abuse is naturally coming
into domestic affairs too. Those people were taught they are supposed
to live in the 'free world'. So some dislike what they see as excessive
restrictions and regulations.

[Oleg Smirnov]

Fran, <news:su71ea$uf6$1...@dont-email.me>

I hope OED gives correct hints (PIE *pri etc) but likely lacks
clarification, so one needs to think a little on their own or/and
also look into other dictionaries.

[Oleg Smirnov]

*Ördög*, <news:7uENJ.673587$ajC1....@fx05.ams4>

> It was written by Fran:

>>> The fact is, the very original meaning of 'freedom' included the
>>> freedoms to discriminate and abuse some "disenfranchised" others. The
>>> word 'freedom' developed its meaning in contrasting free people with
>>> unfree people. If one excludes the latter from the context, then it's
>>> no longer clear what 'freedom' really means.
>>
>> That isn't a 'fact' supported by the etymology given in 20 volume Oxford
>> Dictionary.
>
> Would those who throw around this now severely weaponized word the most
> in the Anglophone Universe (i.e. far right and religious loons and
> conservative capitalist libertarians) all adhere strictly to the Oxford
> Dictionary's definitions ??????????

Of course, not. There's a cult of freedom, akin to a religious
cult, the word has become a cultist fetish, and it's natural that
misc people may seek to adapt the word to their particular views.
But what is 'true meaning' of 'freedom', what it had evolved from,
is somewhat interesting in itself.

[Fran]

There may be such a 'cult' where you live but................. There
are certainly a few loons in this country who've adopted the US
witterings about 'freedom' but they are the fringe loons who are several
6 packs short of a party.

[Fran]

On 12/02/2022 10:45 pm, Oleg Smirnov wrote:
> Fran, <news:su71u5$14h$1...@dont-email.me>
>> On 11/02/2022 5:24 pm, Oleg Smirnov wrote:
>>> Fran, <news:su48d1$nde$1...@dont-email.me>
>>>> On 11/02/2022 5:46 am, Oleg Smirnov wrote:
>>>>> *Ördög*, <news:su1oii$v76$1...@dont-email.me>
>>>>
>>>>>> The word *Freedom* is certainly not the only one.
>>>>>
>>>>> Anyone who'd learn the etymological origin of the word 'freedom'
>>>>> (not only in English, in many languages it's similar), would find
>>>>> it's not as nice as in the modern [leftist] meaning.
>>>>
>>>> Hmmmmmm. From observation, I strongly suspect thaat the word
>>>> 'freedom' in
>>>> a political context is much more used by raging hard
>>>> right/neo fascists than lefties. eg the freedom convoy in Canada.
>>>
>>> In a political context, 'freedom' became a well-worn word within
>>> liberal thoughts, and in the [North] American use, Liberals are more
>>> associated with Leftists.
>>
>> Maybe in the US but the US is uniquely weird when it comes to politics,
>> political jargan and how to usurp prefectly valid words and make them
>> socially unacceptable.
>
> The US-leading 'west' has to adapt to the American trends anyway.

Americans seem to think that but I doubt the rest of the western world
does. Influence and trends can come form anywhere.

>
>>> In more original meaning, liberty connotes more like "freedom from
>>> [despotic] restrictions", and the supporters of the "freedom convoy"
>>> seek to claim their protest is against unreasonable restrictions.
>>
>> The 'freedom' convoys/marches are full of fruitcakes, loons and
>> strange bed
>> fellows with disparate aims and goals.
>
> It may be, but it still doesn't change the basic fact that they protest
> against what they perceive as excessive restrictiveness, hence they
> employ the "freedom" term.

From what I can see of these loons, when asked, they can't manage to
string together anything more than a 3-5 word slogan that says nothing
of any use. And as I said before, they seem to come from so many
disparate and disaffected groups and backgrounds that the only thing
that they seem to show as being common to them all is that they are
crotchety unhappy about something or other but don't ask them to explain
with any precision what it is they are pissed off about.

>
>> I've yet to see any claims out of the various convoys/marches that make
>> sense in mainstream society.
>
> The Atlanticist political mainstream had made 'freedom' a big word,

Well certainly the US seems to have done so.

> especially in foreign policies, and then the abuse is naturally coming
> into domestic affairs too. Those people were taught they are supposed
> to live in the 'free world'. So some dislike what they see as excessive
> restrictions and regulations.

Yebbut that does seem to be something that is very much loved in the US.
In the rest of the English speaking world it often causes an eye
rolling response.

[Oleg Smirnov]

Fran, <news:sua19h$45u$1...@dont-email.me>

I think, such a cult of freedom serves political engineering, because
it allows to embellish and ennoble the hegemonist aspirations of the
Atlanticist policy makers who represent interests of big corporations.

But abuse of freedom slogans also leads to 'side effects' domestically.

From regular Westerners it's often possible to hear some sane criticism
about the American trends and policies, but mainstream politicians are
aware of where the master is and what direction they should follow.

[Oleg Smirnov]

Arindam Banerjee,
<news:f2d2906c-e43d-4448...@googlegroups.com>

>> The fact is, the very original meaning of 'freedom' included the
>> freedoms to discriminate and abuse some "disenfranchised" others.
>> The word 'freedom' developed its meaning in contrasting free people
>> with unfree people. If one excludes the latter from the context,
>> then it's no longer clear what 'freedom' really means.
>

> Freedom means whether one is free to MOVE or not.
> Serfs were not free, unlike gypsies, birds, worms, etc.
> On the other hand, one is tied down by the chains of office.
> The officebearer is not free either.
> Nor are those traditionally married.
>
> Hooliganism is freedom of a sort.

Opportunity to move does not seem the only component of freedom.
And the office-related issues are linked with social institutions.
At the early time, when the idea of freedom was first expressed in
language, there were no developed institutions, there were clans,
mostly based on kinship, with certain mores and customs.

[Oleg Smirnov]

Arindam Banerjee,
<news:d2aae200-576b-4cc3...@googlegroups.com>

> On Thursday, 17 February 2022 at 05:46:18 UTC+11, Oleg Smirnov wrote:

>>> Freedom means whether one is free to MOVE or not.
>>> Serfs were not free, unlike gypsies, birds, worms, etc.
>>> On the other hand, one is tied down by the chains of office.
>>> The officebearer is not free either.
>>> Nor are those traditionally married.
>>>
>>> Hooliganism is freedom of a sort.
>>
>> Opportunity to move does not seem the only component of freedom.
>

> What else is there?

Whether one is free to do something or not.

>> And the office-related issues are linked with social institutions.
>> At the early time, when the idea of freedom was first expressed in
>> language, there were no developed institutions, there were clans,
>> mostly based on kinship, with certain mores and customs.
>

> Idea of freedom is the most well known to stone age people.
> Civilisation that is getting stuck in places trades stone age
> freedom for comforts and conveniences.

Modern life is less primitive, but basics of human nature has not
changed much, and modern people dispute (including the start of this
thread) whether the term 'freedom' is appropriate in this or that case.

Many great philosophers wrote about freedom, but I think the best way
to grasp the true meaning is to trace how the word originated and then
evolved over time up to the present.

[Mattb]

On Fri, 11 Feb 2022 10:50:54 +1100, Fran

In the USA, the far-left uses the word freedom to say they get
freebies and can steal from those that work for a living. If you
disagree, they send in the Woke and Cancel crowd, or worse, the Antifa
terrorist.

[Steve]

uue21h9c1jjdqt57a...@4ax.com posing as Mattb wrote:

> In the USA, the far-left uses the word freedom to say they get
> freebies and can steal from those that work for a living.

Really?

When? Where? How? How often?
What do you take against this?

> If you
> disagree, they send in the Woke and Cancel crowd, or worse, the Antifa
> terrorist.

Who is exactly they?

[Jos Boersema]

On 2022-02-10, Dhu on Gate <camp...@neotext.ca> wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Feb 2022 01:08:35 +0000, *Ördög* wrote:
>> *Freedom is Conformity*
>> /Mrs. Betty Bowers, America's Best Christian/
>> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lA18NFrMv6E>
>>

>> There are certain words in English which become completely twisted away
>> from their actual meanings due to being hijacked by far-right and
>> religious fundamentalist political propagandists.
>> I'd call that crime against good semantics.
>>
>> The word *Freedom* is certainly not the only one. The same goes for the
>> words *cancel* and *woke* for instance!
>> It seems these words are now bereft of their original meanings.
>> Hallelujah! MAGA rules the Anglophone-Universe.
>
> "Freedom's just another word for nothin' left to lose..."

Freedom typically means a person can follow their own choices, rather
than being told what to do, or being constrained by issues beyond their
immediate control. Some research seems to suggest freedom is essential
for the happiness of people.o

Relevant freedoms for this group (APS) its topic include economic and
political freedoms.

Current mass ideology supports these political freedoms:
- Freedom of speech / protest and organization.
- Freedom of electing the Government.
... ? (Please add as you see fit, same for below.)

These political freedoms are not generally achieved:
- Freedom to start a new country (Secession). (USA has some weaker
provisions in this direction.)
- Freedom to re-elect Government in whole or part at will. Election
mandates typically run for 4 years. ("Parliament")

Economic freedoms supported and generally achieved (Western world):
- Freedom of occupation.
- Freedom of education.
- Freedom of choosing and ending a contracted job.
- Freedom of lending and borrowing.
- Freedom to trade services and products. (Although this freedom is
hindered by Government regulation and taxation.)

Economic freedoms not generally achieved:
- Freedom of land use. (Land has to be bought in a market, which
usually leads to extreme prices, low or no availability of what is
needed by someone, and eventually all land will be owned by one
entity, which will end land markets and usher in a new system of top
down control over land.)

The labor movement - to the degree it was Revolutionary - seems to have
historically focussed on implementing the right to replace Government
representatives effectively and immediately (Council Government model).
It was well understood how corrupt and hopeless the Parliament turned
out to be. How surprisingly small the effective control of the people
over the Parliament was. Blame was assigned to lying politicians who
betrayed their constituencies after elections (bribery, opportunism).

Freedom of land use seems to have been completely overlooked and
misunderstood. Freedom of lending and borrowing seems to have been
viewed critically by the labor movement ("Capitalist bankers ...").
Even common freedoms of trade have been limited and attacked by the
Communistic element in general.

*

Therefore Communism failed, because it misunderstood how freedom in
land (personally owned by right) coupled with common / natural economic
freedoms such as trading products and services is helping the common
people and the poor, assuming these people are willing to work and do a
good job. They may have been too fearfull of centralization of power in
the economy, and/or not creative or confident enough to invent mechanisms
to address this issue within a dynamic market economy.

The result of rejecting trade in general, was accepting a massive
bureaucratic planned economy. There seem to be only two options for
a commonly beneficial production system: either things are left to the
market, or they are controlled by the Government directly, or a
combination of these two. The second of these, Government control,
however demands intimate knowledge of all people involved, their
strengths and weaknesses, to equalize work pressure. This is however an
unsolvable problem on a large scale.

The Communists made the mistake of treating a Nation as if it is a single
family, where the members do know each other intimately. Stalinism was the
logical outcome of Marxism and Leninism (failure to understand economics
and centralization of power over the implementation): tyrannical control
by a new Czar.

The second failure of Revolutionary labor was to not work out a detailed
model of a Council Government, and to practice with it until they had it
working properly. Things where too chaotic, and needed to succeed in too
short a time due to the nature of the situation (war). The resulting
chaos played into the hand of the economic failure. The chaos and
absence of the voice of the Council Government in Russia was a power
vacuum in which tyranny could come back (Stalin).

This is how a form of a trade economy won against "Communism".
To have the markets generally run free with many independent businesses
is the only way to organize a vast amount of people into a production
system which is to run indefinitely. Despite the menace of Capitalism
within the trade system (unrestricted centralization of power and the
mistake of also having land (natural resources) in a market), the trade
system was better than centralized direct Government control over
everything.

Parliament was quite corrupt in general, but it functioned better than
the Russian ad-hoc chaotic Council Government which had basically neither
structure nor barely any logic to it, nor had been given a defined task,
and was populated by many uneducated people who came straight from
menial jobs. With the Council Government breaking apart and becoming
Czarism with a new style sheet under Stalin, Parliament turned out
superior and has won the historical competition against Marxist /
Leninist Communism as well.

Both sides failed for the Communists, both economics and the State. I
think it is likely that if the Communists had either not failed in their
economic understanding, or not failed in their State organization, that
they would still have failed in general, because it is difficult to make
large scale changes to a country and expect that to function correctly.
If they had gotten both right, prehaps they would have had a chance of
succeeding, if they could find the courage to fight against their own
organized criminals to the death where needed (?).

The war situation they where in, probably helped in a big way to create
the panic, chaos and shortages, which would make it so much more
difficult for the Communists to deal with their problems effectively.
Today it has all happened, it is all in the past. Now we can learn from
it. The above is an attempt to draw some lessons for the future.

--
Economic & political ideology, worked out into Constitutional models,
with a multi-facetted implementation plan. http://market.socialism.nl