WALKING THE TALK 06/03/22
Let's say Communism is the idea of everybody irrespective of who they are share goods, properties and services of society equally therefore they expect to live peacefully.
Services might also include such expectations as work to contribute to the common good. But along the way of distribution and knowing the nature of materialism, people start to fight over goods and blame others for taking more or doing less than their fair share.
So the state or government or ruling authority starts to impose punishments including locking people up, or sending them to hard labour camps for cheating. Thus the mentality of the people begins to pick up that having an autocratic ruler to impose punishments would have control of the people to maintain fair distribution of wealth and resources.
An innocent idea of peace, equality and freedom becomes the basis of atrocious regimes. It could work for a productive and profitable economy but for freedom and human decency. However, authoritarian rules made examples of by slaughter of many people that they were subordinated by fear. And there, the road to peace, equality and freedom is laid with the blood of innocents. And the idea of Communism is blemished with stigma for eternal.
Walking the talk could mean one has to fulfil what he/she is talking about. Therefore, if one is talking about murder, he/she has to fulfil that by killing someone. In the absence of a moral or objective framework, walking the talk is not the right term.
Capitalism is the distribution of wealth and resources based on a hierarchical social structure. We know this structure is favoured among rich nationals and class membership is based on privileged ethnic background. But because of ethnicity and poor status, some people are disadvantaged by discrimination.
Now, this is where the idea of Marxism is borne. We are informed by media news of Marxist activists that are associated with extreme terrorism or separatism. So when you place Communism besides Marxism, we are warned of atrocious and terrorist organisation. But the propaganda implies exactly the arguments against Communism in favour of Capitalism, to maintain the status quo.
Marxism is instead an intellectual reconnaissance seeking to overthrow the class structure that favours accumulation of wealth in the private sector. Marxism seeks to redistribute resources equally among the people irrespective of who they are.
If Marxists were walking the talk, then they would obviously engage in civil war and to reinstate the rule of the people. No, Marxist reconnaissance is a modern intellectual movement seeking to analyse issues of labour, equality, discrimination, Poverty, Climate Change and so on, for a fair and more equal diverse society of the future.
The idea of Communism is too good to be true if it doesn't quantify a valid output into practical reality. It is not walking the talk, rather it is Objectivism.
When ordinary working people felt stigmatised by association with Communism, they renamed their movement Socialism which had given it a modern and practical form.
And this is the danger of old static ideologies that needed modifications and modernization. Conservatism under Capitalism is like a God given right to rule over others based on ethnicity and economic status. The Conservative ideology is a top-down rule of Walking the Talk. There is no moral or practical quantification.
The old ideology is like a verbal command to increase wealth for the private sector. The achievement is when the private sector becomes richer, but the road to success is laid with the blood and sweat of workers among the poor. It is not pragmatic; it is not objectively valid and it is irresponsible.
When the house is a rising concrete block meeting the demand for investors and necessarily inflating the cost, the ordinary folk pays the inflated price. But when the house is built for purpose to meet a social need, it inheres it a contingency value away from prospective buyers.
So you might say that the dollar is an ideological symbol of trade that has no credit balance. That means, it is not based on real contingency value of goods, services or labour.
And a valid quantification does not inhere it a negative outcome which is greater than its so-called success. Children living in Poverty among the homeless have experienced this injustice conservative ideological rule throughout the ages.
The Marxist argument is not a dogmatic belief for followers, it is rather a pragmatic connection between the verbal command or walking the talk, with social and economic stability. A practical resolution considers a balance outcome on both right and left wings of the political spectrum.
A Conservative ideological approach does not have a moral framework to quantify a practical and fair outcome. That is why is when money is loaded to the private sector, the poor gets poorer and become homeless.
As people become aware and realise their shared struggle, they begin to repel in drove formation breaking away from authoritarian regimes.
So, the usual reaction sustaining such old dogmatic ideologies is a return to forceful submission by hired propaganda and accumulation of weapons. Yes, the conservative can afford such atrocious antiques since its private sector owns about 90% of society's wealth. It's a sell out!