Myths about socialist thought

[RGacky3]

Here are a few strawmans people bring up to argue against socialism when infact these ideas have nothing to do with socialism.

1. Socialism is about entitlement.
The argument is that socialism is the theory that everyone is entitled to something, that that is why socialists want things like universal healthcare, public industry and the such, because we believe everyone is entitled to that.

The Fact is, socialism is not about entitlement rather about democracy, that everyone should have the right to have a say in the way the things that affect them are run, for example universal healthcare is supported by socialists, not because we believe everyone is entitled to healthcare, but because we don't want this extreamly important institution or part of society to be controlled by a few profit oriented corporations, instead we want to have more public control.

As far as a safty net, again, it has nothing to do with entitlement, but instead the fact that in a Capitalist system the rich ruling class has an extremely unfair advantage and that the working class IS actually exploited, so social-democrats that realize that wish to offset that exploitation with things like minimum wage, a safty net, unemployment benefits and the such, and charge them to the rich, that benefit from the Capitalist system.

2. Socialism is about everyone being equal.

The argument is that socialists want everyone to have equal payment, live the same, and just be the same.

Socialism has never been about that, what it has been about is equal say over economic matters, obviously socialists want a more equitable distribution, but thats not the issue, when everyone has equal say over the resource and capital manegement of course it would be more equitable than if only the ruling class has a say (duh), so socialism is about exactly that, economic democracy. Communism is the system that does away with distribution entirely, in which case, equal ownership is'nt an issue because ownership is'nt part of society, its just possesssion and use.

3. Socialists want government control.

The argument is that socialists want to government to control peoples lives rather than individuals.

Socialists want less corporate control and more freedom and more democracy, what socialists do prefer is government (when it is democratic) control over corporate control, simply because government is much more accountable to the general public and is more democratic. You'll never hear socialists in a dictatorial country, like a monarchy or whatever call for government control, because that government control does'nt mean more democracy.

4. Socialists put society over the individual.

The argument is that socialists believe everything should be a societal right over individual rights.

SOcialists want SOCIAL issue to be delt with socially and individual issues to be delt with individually, who you marry or what sex you marry is YOUR choice, what you wear, listen to or whatever is up to you, your culture is your choice, all of that is individual choice, socialists have no interest in socializing those things. What socialists DO want to socialize is things that affect many people, and actually take away freedom for many individuals. Socialists want to maximize freedom for everyone, which would mean getting rid of institutions that allow the few to rule the many. Socialists understand that capitalist property rights takes away individual liberty from the majority of the people, so they oppose it.

5. Socialists don't want you to have your own toothbrush.

You don't need capitalists property rights to have your own toothbrush.

These are just a few big ones, that I hope can get out of the way. :)

[LeftSideDown]

http://i275.photobucket.com/albums/jj300/Zhusuke/CoolStoryBro.jpg

[Jazzratt]

http://i275.photobucket.com/albums/jj300/Zhusuke/CoolStoryBro.jpg

Don't spam. This is a verbal warning, you are being warned. Bear that in mind if you feel the urge to start whining when you get an infraction.

[Drace]

Don't spam. This is a verbal warning, you are being warned. Bear that in mind if you feel the urge to start whining when you get an infraction.

To be fair, I seen lot of comrades here do the same.

[Jazzratt]

To be fair, I seen lot of comrades here do the same.

Yeah Rules are somewhat looser when responding to restricted trolls.

[LeftSideDown]

You forgot a myth:

6) Socialists practice consistent justice:

Clearly false as demonstrated above.

[Jazzratt]

You forgot a myth:

6) Socialists practice consistent justice:

Clearly false as demonstrated above.

Oh noes. The terrible injustices meted out to you on a message board. How will you ever cope?

Try to stay on topic for fuck's sake.

[Bud Struggle]

Hey, Gack wrote a good post--please respond in a decent way. You Mods and Admins should loose these worthless posts.

[RGacky3]

All right, I am assuming none of theses strawmans or missattributions will ever be brought up by anti-socialists here again, mission accomplished.

[Gravediggers]

All right, I am assuming none of theses strawmans or missattributions will ever be brought up by anti-socialists here again, mission accomplished.

Glad to say that your mission is unaccomplished, for all you have done in your original post is muddied the water even further by suggesting all of your assumptions and conclusions can be resolved within the mindset of capitalism. For instance, you assume that buying and selling, the market, investors, government control over cooperate interests, welfare, etc,etc, will exist in a socialist society.

Sorry Bud, but with common ownership under the democratic control of the global community has a whole, free access, production for use has a clear description of socialism you have not even reached first base and remain within the capitalist box.

[GPDP]

Glad to say that your mission is unaccomplished, for all you have done in your original post is muddied the water even further by suggesting all of your assumptions and conclusions can be resolved within the mindset of capitalism. For instance, you assume that buying and selling, the market, investors, government control over cooperate interests, welfare, etc,etc, will exist in a socialist society.

Sorry Bud, but with common ownership under the democratic control of the global community has a whole, free access, production for use has a clear description of socialism you have not even reached first base and remain within the capitalist box.

Oh, come off of it. When did he suggest the aims of socialism could be resolved within the capitalist framework (I assume that's what you mean when you say "the mindset of capitalism")?

Could he have been clearer as to the aims of socialism? Sure, but that is not the main point of this thread. This thread's primary purpose is to merely debunk bullshit, ridiculous claims about socialism from right-wingers more interested in perpetuating lies and propaganda than having an intellectually honest discussion on the merits of socialism.

Lastly, RGacky3 is most definitely not on the "first base" or within the "capitalist box." I see you're new here, so it's excusable for you to think so based solely on this one post, but save for his views on abortion (for which he is restricted), he is very much a socialist who understands what socialism entails, and that you cannot achieve its goals within the framework of capitalism.

[ZeroNowhere]

I see you're new here, so it's excusable for you to think so based solely on this one post, but save for his views on abortion (for which he is restricted), he is very much a socialist who understands what socialism entails, and that you cannot achieve its goals within the framework of capitalism.
Hm? Supporting or opposing the legality of abortion does not make you any more or less socialist whatsoever.

[LeftSideDown]

Apparently it does and its enough to be censored by the nomenklatura of this site. They decide what opinions are the right ones to hold.

[Skooma Addict]

The Fact is, socialism is not about entitlement rather about democracy, that everyone should have the right to have a say in the way the things that affect them are run, for example universal healthcare is supported by socialists, not because we believe everyone is entitled to healthcare, but because we don't want this extreamly important institution or part of society to be controlled by a few profit oriented corporations, instead we want to have more public control.

I know many socialists who think everyone is entitled to healthcare.

[syndicat]

access to health care is a condition of positive freedom. hence it's a condition of justice. this is because positive freedom includes the equal access to the means to sustain one's abilities and develop one's potential. a person's capacity to be self-determining and control one's life, equally with others, depends on having access to the means to sustain & develop the abilities needed for this. and this includes sustaining one's physical health.

this also includes equal say in the self-management of workplaces, including the conditions that affect one's health. under capitalism the working class does not live as long as the dominating classes, because of things like stress from speedup, intensification of pace of work, exposure to dangerous chemicals, dangerous work environments, being forced to live in polluted neighborhoods as these are the only ones one can afford.

so equal access to means to sustain one's health also includes prevention of conditions destrutive to one's health, and this means control over the technologies and conditions where one works.

[Havet]

access to health care is a condition of positive freedom. hence it's a condition of justice. this is because positive freedom includes the equal access to the means to sustain one's abilities and develop one's potential. a person's capacity to be self-determining and control one's life, equally with others, depends on having access to the means to sustain & develop the abilities needed for this. and this includes sustaining one's physical health.

this also includes equal say in the self-management of workplaces, including the conditions that affect one's health. under capitalism the working class does not live as long as the dominating classes, because of things like stress from speedup, intensification of pace of work, exposure to dangerous chemicals, dangerous work environments, being forced to live in polluted neighborhoods as these are the only ones one can afford.

so equal access to means to sustain one's health also includes prevention of conditions destrutive to one's health, and this means control over the technologies and conditions where one works.

Let me just post here a common reply and see how well you handle it:

By what logic does society exploit me, like capitalists, from the products of my labor, in order for them to have "entitlement" or "free access" to healthcare?

also: "... includes prevention of conditions destrutive to one's health"

Does that mean cigarretes and alcohol and television and cocaine and boring jobs and lsd and acid and all of the things that are destructive to one's mental and physical health will be banned?

[syndicat]

By what logic does society exploit me, like capitalists, from the products of my labor, in order for them to have "entitlement" or "free access" to healthcare?

also: "... includes prevention of conditions destrutive to one's health"

Does that mean cigarretes and alcohol and television and cocaine and boring jobs and lsd and acid and all of the things that are destructive to one's mental and physical health will be banned?

We're talking about the effects on a person's health and the development of their potential from the social structure. The logic of capitalism leads to systematic de-skilling, concentration of control and expertise related to planning and management into the hands of a few, diminishing of skill requirements, and hence diminishing of real opportunity for skill development. Capitalism leads firms to dump costs onto workers, through intensification of work, which enhances labor productivity and thus profits, through avoiding expenses related to protection of worker health, such as more expensive technical methods that would be safer or more likely to avoid dangerous chemical exposures.

Entitlement to free health care derives from two moral principles: positive freedom and solidarity. Solidarity is based on compassion, an understanding that each of us is vulnerable to health problems down the road. Positive freedom means sustaining and developing one's abilities.

Freedom is the opposite of oppression. Oppression is a form of injustice. Hence negative and positive freedom are conditions of justice. And positive freedom supports creation of a system of public provision of health care.

Requiring that it be based on one's ability to pay would be a denial of equal access to the means to sustain & develop one's capacities and would violate solidarity.

And, yes, a division of labor where some people are consigned to only doing drudge work would be banned. Jobs would have to be systematically reorganized so that all jobs involve skills and learning enough so that the person can effectively participate with others in the collective self-management and collective decisions in regard to that industry.

A lot of the problems of drug abuse are related to people self-medicating for the damage to self-esteem from unemployment, racism, insults to their dignity that are characteristics of a society based on class and racial inequality.

I don't think alcohol or marijuana should be banned because moderate use can be integrated with a healthy and non-destructive life. Abuse of drugs would still occur to some extent in an egalitarian society but this should be dealt with not as a criminal problem but as a public health probelm, through counseling and education and such.

cigarettes are highly addictive, but I don't think the appropriate way to deal with that is banning. I think eliminating advertising and restricting availability and education and support for those who want to quit. Again, it needs to be dealt with as a public health problem.

Drugs can be damaging to one's health, but the only way in which this is due to the social structure at present is: 1. self-medicating for damage to oneself from the alienating and racist and unequal society, 2. dumping in poor neighborhoods and targeting of working class people by highly profitable cigarette and alcohol industries.

The real reason for the present "War on Drugs" is it's a racist way of dealing with the fact that American capitalism can't provide jobs for everyone who might want one. And if they're out on street corners or roaming in public, the unemployed lower orders can be a danger to social stability...as in the ghetto riots of the '60s. Hence the "lock em up" approach, with 1.5 percent of the population in prisons, and with a very high percentage merely for using marijuana.

[RGacky3]

I know many socialists who think everyone is entitled to healthcare.

So what? The point is the general concept behind healthcare is democraticly, not for profit, controlled healthcare as opposed to for profit corporate controled healthcare. Also most rightwingers just frame it as an entitlement issue because thats easier to argue against, whereas if you read and listen to most socialists, its not about that at all, its about what I mentioned.


also: "... includes prevention of conditions destrutive to one's health"

Does that mean cigarretes and alcohol and television and cocaine and boring jobs and lsd and acid and all of the things that are destructive to one's mental and physical health will be banned?

He did'nt say that, he ment that healthcare includes preventative healthcare, which means workers have a right to make sure their workplace is safe for their health (its their damn workplace), and that there is access to healthy food. But the issue is, when its democratically run rather than run corporately, these things are a given, simply because the incentives chance.

[RGacky3]

Well I'm glad its cleared up now :)