Page 10 of 17 FirstFirst ... 89101112 ... LastLast
Results 91 to 100 of 166

Thread: Socialism less of a dirty word in the US?

  1. Top | #91
    Contributor
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Lots of planets have a North
    Posts
    5,147
    Archived
    5,115
    Total Posts
    10,262
    Rep Power
    56
    Quote Originally Posted by PyramidHead View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Jason Harvestdancer View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by dismal View Post

    When talking politics, that is the most basic question. What sort of government force do you advocate. I'm sorry that you're such a blushing little child you must shy away from it.
    The thing is, he has been quite vocal about the use of violence against those who don't agree with his policies. As long as he feels he can get away with it. Such as when the group he is talking about is unpopular. Not that he has ever thrown a punch in his life. But maybe under optimal conditions, such as the person is restrained, and sedated, and he has armed backup. Then oh boy would he teach the dissenter a lesson.

    He is less vocal about his desire to use violence against those who disagree with him here because here he is talking to those who aren't hated minorities, so he has to pretend to be more friendly. He really does believe in pointing guns to get his way. Not that he has ever held a gun.
    You keep confusing what I personally would like to see done to fascists by ordinary people with what I would decree an autocratic state should legally be able to do. I think punching Nazis is good and I like when it happens, but that doesn't mean I want the law to agree with me. The law is for the majority to decide, not me. Why do you have such an issue grasping this? I think it might have something to do with being unable to conceive of a way of accomplishing something without the official approval of a government body, and between you and dismal I can't figure out who loves the power of government more.
    When people are discussing politics, they are saying "this is what I would like to see happen, I advocate that the government do it this way." You just wrote "this is what I would like to see happen, I don't advocate that the government do it this way." That is not believable.

    Sure, you hide behind majoritarianism, but even majoritarians want to convince the majority. You evade to hide your greatest love of government, your violent beliefs, and your own authoritarianism.

  2. Top | #92
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    3,277
    Rep Power
    22
    Quote Originally Posted by PyramidHead View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by dismal View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by PyramidHead View Post
    I don't have any problem with worker co-ops. None at all. Set all of them up that you like. So long as you acquire the property legally and don't use force to compel people to participate in them.

    It's the using of force, the seizing of property, and the involuntary nature of economic interactions that accompanies socialism that's the problem.
    That's incoherent, because private property is entirely maintained by force. How do you think it came to exist in the first place? We've been through this many times. Private property is simply a productive resource that someone claims as his own, not because he wants or needs what is being produced by it, but because it allows him to create value by hiring workers to transform it into a commodity others will pay for. Some of that value goes back into maintaining the process, and the rest of it goes to the owner. Private property is not a sacred benediction from the heavens, but a societal construct like any other whose inputs and outputs are invented by humans. In other words (and this one's for you too, Harry): the use of force to compel people to respect private property is no more voluntary than the use of force to abolish private property. Both are artificial, ideologically grounded activities. No economic behavior is purely voluntary, as incentives and material conditions define the range of voluntary behaviors before any transaction takes place.

    The existence of a legal framework in which acquiring property is permitted and encouraged is a construction of capitalism. If capitalism did not rule the world, whoever wanted private property would need to use illegal means and a lot of force to get it. If you're just saying we should support whatever economic system has legal and cultural support, that's not a very persuasive argument. You could easily have made the same argument in favor of slave labor or feudalism; again, both were at one time legally sanctioned and both were exactly as "inherent" and "fundamental" as private property, i.e. not at all.

    You might say: "I have no problem with farms that pay their workers. Set up as many as you like. So long as you keep it legal and don't use force to compel everyone else to adopt that model, I'm okay with it. Some people like that idea, but my slaves know they're better off being taken care of on my plantation than fending for themselves in the job market." Regarding the use of force and involuntary economic interactions, there is only (perhaps) a difference in degree between chattel slavery and wage slavery, but certainly not a difference in kind. Slaves have the choice to either work diligently on someone else's property or starve. The working class has the choice to either work diligently on someone else's property or starve. In the first case, it was socially prohibited for the slave to ever become a property owner with his own slaves--but if this weren't the case, it wouldn't have made slavery acceptable, would it?
    The reason why private property is maintained by the state is because it is the law of the land. You believe that that wage slavery is immoral and should be banned. But there is a very significant majority who do not agree with you. What gives you the right to want to impose your beliefs on the majority? Because you think that you are right?

  3. Top | #93
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    3,277
    Rep Power
    22
    Quote Originally Posted by PyramidHead View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by dismal View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by PyramidHead View Post
    What? No, I disagree that what the government does is the most important aspect of politics and economics.
    OK, so placing that aside, it seems you could still answer the question what it is you want the government to do. Or, if there's not going to be a formal government, what will happen to the people who don't do what you advocate.
    Try to understand: what I advocate is a system where all of society, including the government and the entire economy, is run by the democratic will of the mass of people based on their own wants and needs. All the details about what kind of government should exist and who should be part of it are for the people to decide.
    Wow, how is that even practical? Local government in the tiny town where I live makes a 100 decisions a day. You think that everyone should be making all these decisions for every entity in the country?

    Regardless: what if a majority don't want this type of quagmire?

  4. Top | #94
    Veteran Member Axulus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Bellingham, WA
    Posts
    3,939
    Archived
    10,958
    Total Posts
    14,897
    Rep Power
    62
    Quote Originally Posted by PyramidHead View Post
    You may be beyond all help at this point.

    So the US has never shown any hostility toward (or deliberate installation of capital-friendly dictators to replace elected socialist leaders in) any country whose population was sympathetic to socialist policies, say in South and Central America? Sure that's the hill you want to die on?
    Most of those were/are essentially dictatorships. You are seriously contending these dictatorships would've been a good society with a good economy if the US didn't interfere? Also note that Venezuela went to shit before the US really did anything.

  5. Top | #95
    Elder Contributor
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    texas
    Posts
    10,081
    Archived
    18,348
    Total Posts
    28,429
    Rep Power
    67
    Quote Originally Posted by Jason Harvestdancer View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by PyramidHead View Post

    You keep confusing what I personally would like to see done to fascists by ordinary people with what I would decree an autocratic state should legally be able to do. I think punching Nazis is good and I like when it happens, but that doesn't mean I want the law to agree with me. The law is for the majority to decide, not me. Why do you have such an issue grasping this? I think it might have something to do with being unable to conceive of a way of accomplishing something without the official approval of a government body, and between you and dismal I can't figure out who loves the power of government more.
    When people are discussing politics, they are saying "this is what I would like to see happen, I advocate that the government do it this way." You just wrote "this is what I would like to see happen, I don't advocate that the government do it this way." That is not believable.

    Sure, you hide behind majoritarianism, but even majoritarians want to convince the majority. You evade to hide your greatest love of government, your violent beliefs, and your own authoritarianism.
    Well, I suppose the alternative is that he sincerely believes people will form peaceful spontaneous majorities to vote in the policies he supports without him ever articulating what they are.

    The great mystery we're left to ponder is why he keeps popping up to defend socialism and violence on this board.

  6. Top | #96
    Contributor DrZoidberg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Copenhagen
    Posts
    7,686
    Archived
    5,746
    Total Posts
    13,432
    Rep Power
    51
    Dismal, do you think welfare is socialism? There's loads of things we label as socialism which is not about the workers controlling the means of production.

  7. Top | #97
    Elder Contributor
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    texas
    Posts
    10,081
    Archived
    18,348
    Total Posts
    28,429
    Rep Power
    67
    Quote Originally Posted by DrZoidberg View Post
    Dismal, do you think welfare is socialism? There's loads of things we label as socialism which is not about the workers controlling the means of production.
    Once again:

    https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialism

  8. Top | #98
    Loony Running The Asylum ZiprHead's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Do you like my pretty crown?
    Posts
    13,336
    Archived
    3,034
    Total Posts
    16,370
    Rep Power
    83
    Quote Originally Posted by dismal View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by DrZoidberg View Post
    Dismal, do you think welfare is socialism? There's loads of things we label as socialism which is not about the workers controlling the means of production.
    Once again:

    https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialism
    I was poo-pooed when I suggested we need a new word. It's the pedantry displayed above that's why we do.
    ITMFA

    When conservatives realize they cannot win democratically, they will not abandon conservatism. They will abandon democracy.

    You submit to tyranny when you renounce truth. - Timothy Snyder

  9. Top | #99
    Veteran Member PyramidHead's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    RI
    Posts
    3,540
    Archived
    4,389
    Total Posts
    7,929
    Rep Power
    55
    Quote Originally Posted by dismal View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by PyramidHead View Post
    Try to understand: what I advocate is a system where all of society, including the government and the entire economy, is run by the democratic will of the mass of people based on their own wants and needs. All the details about what kind of government should exist and who should be part of it are for the people to decide.
    Well then, I guess we don’t have to worry about socialism. It’s hard to imagine it lasting long within a democracy.

    Except of course socialists always destroy the democracy.
    So, other than the fact that I use the word 'socialism' to describe the part in bold there, is there anything about it (the bolded) you actually disagree with?

    Quote Originally Posted by Jason Harvestdancer View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by PyramidHead View Post

    You keep confusing what I personally would like to see done to fascists by ordinary people with what I would decree an autocratic state should legally be able to do. I think punching Nazis is good and I like when it happens, but that doesn't mean I want the law to agree with me. The law is for the majority to decide, not me. Why do you have such an issue grasping this? I think it might have something to do with being unable to conceive of a way of accomplishing something without the official approval of a government body, and between you and dismal I can't figure out who loves the power of government more.
    When people are discussing politics, they are saying "this is what I would like to see happen, I advocate that the government do it this way." You just wrote "this is what I would like to see happen, I don't advocate that the government do it this way." That is not believable.
    Again, not everybody thinks of politics as what the government does. Workers going on strike against their bosses is politics. Women protesting against institutional sexism is politics. Sargon of Akkad getting pelted with sardines: politics. Most historically relevant political change begins (or occurs entirely) outside the established channels of governmental policy.

    Sure, you hide behind majoritarianism, but even majoritarians want to convince the majority. You evade to hide your greatest love of government, your violent beliefs, and your own authoritarianism.
    When your only tool is being against one specific type of authoritarianism, every problem looks like that specific type. The peg just won't fit, but you keep hammering away.

    Quote Originally Posted by Harry Bosch View Post
    The reason why private property is maintained by the state is because it is the law of the land. You believe that that wage slavery is immoral and should be banned. But there is a very significant majority who do not agree with you. What gives you the right to want to impose your beliefs on the majority? Because you think that you are right?
    Holy shit. How many times do I have to make this next point: your comment is literally what every reactionary conservative has ever said in response to every instance of social or political progress. It's even conveniently phrased to be vague enough that you could just nominally replace the words "private property" with anything from slavery, women being denied the right to vote, laws against interracial marriage, children working in factories, teenagers being drafted to die in Vietnam, books being banned for their subversive content... I mean, it's just too easy to come up with examples of the law of the land that were awful and yet enjoyed significant public support. Politics is about changing people's minds, Harry! Of course I fucking think I'm right!

    Wow, how is that even practical? Local government in the tiny town where I live makes a 100 decisions a day. You think that everyone should be making all these decisions for every entity in the country?
    Naw, a federal system of representatives would of course be better, but these would not be a special class of society separate from the people they represent. For example, administrative functions of government would be represented by elected officials that had no more power than the elected representatives of worker councils. All elected officials would be recallable at any time by a simple vote, and all would have jobs and roles to play in society other than just being representatives who might not even be affected by the policies they enact. There are some good models for how this might work in the literature on participationist democracy.

    Quote Originally Posted by dismal again
    Well, I suppose the alternative is that he sincerely believes people will form peaceful spontaneous majorities to vote in the policies he supports without him ever articulating what they are.
    Socialism is itself the majority of people directly acting in their own interests democratically. It's not a policy or a set of policies, in the same way that Fenway Park is not any particular game of baseball. It's the framework in which future policies are decided, and you're interpreting it as a proposal for something that might happen within the existing framework. Of course you're left wondering, but that's not my problem.

  10. Top | #100
    Elder Contributor
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    texas
    Posts
    10,081
    Archived
    18,348
    Total Posts
    28,429
    Rep Power
    67
    Quote Originally Posted by PyramidHead View Post
    So, other than the fact that I use the word 'socialism' to describe the part in bold there, is there anything about it (the bolded) you actually disagree with?
    People voting on things they want the government to do I would call "democracy". The state banning individuals from owning the means of production I would call "socialism".

    While "democracy" could result in "socialism", "democracy" and "socialism" are not synonymous. Democracy can also result in not-socialism.

    Historically democracy has not resulted in socialism, and socialism has not resulted in democracy.

Similar Threads

  1. Wiping Up With A Dirty Rag
    By poster in forum Political Discussions
    Replies: 29
    Last Post: 01-12-2019, 12:58 AM
  2. More dirty deeds from the Republicans
    By Loren Pechtel in forum Political Discussions
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 11-20-2017, 12:00 AM
  3. Another dirty Trump
    By Loren Pechtel in forum Political Discussions
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 06-08-2017, 04:28 AM
  4. Republicans dirty tent to keep it big.
    By fromderinside in forum Political Discussions
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: 06-28-2016, 06:27 PM
  5. It's not just the cops that are dirty
    By Loren Pechtel in forum Political Discussions
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 04-20-2015, 05:48 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •