What does a Socialist System need?

[Blackwater]

Can anyone refute that a Political Police is needed to establish a Socialist system?

[KickMcCann]

firstly, what do you mean by political police?


I assume you mean a group like the Checka or KGB, organizations meant to track down and destroy all those who oppose the person or group in power.
Well, in a good socialist movement, such totalitarian force would mostly likely be unecessary. Order and safety are important to every organized society, and police forces help create and maintain order and safety in a society, socialist or not.
The question comes up though, whose order and safety are they there to protect. In capitalist society, police forces have a long history of protecting and siding with the rich and ruling classes whenever the peasants or working classes rose up. The police would guard the factories, estates, and property of the rich while attacking the poor and their dwelling places. Is this not an example of a "Political Police" force necessary to establish/preserve capitalism?

Socialism and capitalism are economic systems, related to but not political systems. A political system can be democratic or dictatorial, and you can mix and match economic and political systems. Switzerland is democratic and capitalist, Burma is dictatorial and capitalist. Finland is socialistic and democratic, Cuba is socialistic and dictatorial.
Thus, if a good, or nice, socialist system were established, it would be politically democratic, with all the nice civil liberties, while economically egaltarian. If socialism can be successful (and I believe it can) its merits and benefits will be enough to silence its potential opponents, but that's only if those opponents are willing to be civil and participatory. If they seek to sabatoge and destroy the system with violence or illegalities, they would be stopped by the police, just as in any capitalist country.

So to summarize, socialism does not need a "Political Police" to support it because #1- Socialism can be democratic with free speech, and #2- Socialism's economic successes are much better at silencing its enemies than a gang of armed goons.

[red_orchestra]

BlackWater:

There are many variations of Leftest ideology. Those systems which ride on dictatorship and those who are more democratic. For instance, lets look at Hugo Chavez system of politics in South America. Hugo Chavez is a strong socialist and he allows people to be free--- in a completely democratic state. Free to choose to stay or leave~ protest against him if needed. His people are 100% behind him... no police or spy networks needed to establish Hugo Chavez's leading his country.

[Clarksist]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2005, 11:14 PM
Can anyone refute that a Political Police is needed to establish a Socialist system?
Yes. Very easily in fact.

True socialism comes from a popular revolution, and complete control by the workers. That's why its (affectionately) referred to as the "dictatorship of the proletariat".

That mean the proletariat rules over the bourgeois. The majority ruling over the minority. By political police (thanks for not using the KGB reference) you must assume that you would have something to fear.

If the people had all their appropriate rights, were well fed, well housed, and happy then the people themselves would be overly socialistic, and would not need to be "tapped" or "secretly policed".

Under actual socialism (not state capitalist regimes of the USSR, Russia, North Korea, etc.) the people have democracy, rights, a job, and a meal.

But you, most unwisely, chose to ask if political polise are "needed". And this is a blanket statement, and to refute it, alll I would need to do is give you a scenario in which political police aren't needed.

Popular revolution.

And popular revolution is, luckily, what most leftists hope for. We aren't all evil. ;)

[Publius]

BlackWater:

There are many variations of Leftest ideology. Those systems which ride on dictatorship and those who are more democratic. For instance, lets look at Hugo Chavez system of politics in South America. Hugo Chavez is a strong socialist and he allows people to be free--- in a completely democratic state. Free to choose to stay or leave~ protest against him if needed. His people are 100% behind him... no police or spy networks needed to establish Hugo Chavez's leading his country.

Yeah, except for the fact that he's removing democracy, and a number of political opponents have strangely gone missing or been found dead...

[h&s]

Why would an oppressive police force be needed to enforce socialism on the people who have just created and run it?
Socialism is a system in which the working class run society, so why would they need to set up a police force to make them do it?


Finland is socialistic and democratic, Cuba is socialistic and dictatorial.
Neither of those countries are socialist.

[RevolucioN NoW]

Yeah, except for the fact that he's removing democracy

By expanding it through his bolivarian constitution, adopted by a free and fiar democratic vote? Chavez is demoratically elected and has 70% approval ratings, fuck even the US admits Chavez wins every election fair and square


and a number of political opponents have strangely gone missing or been found dead...

Sources, evidence?

[YKTMX]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2005, 05:14 AM
Can anyone refute that a Political Police is needed to establish a Socialist system?
What, you mean like the CIA, the FBI, the NSA, MI5, MI6?

Not sure.

[red_orchestra]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2005, 12:40 PM

BlackWater:

There are many variations of Leftest ideology. Those systems which ride on dictatorship and those who are more democratic. For instance, lets look at Hugo Chavez system of politics in South America. Hugo Chavez is a strong socialist and he allows people to be free--- in a completely democratic state. Free to choose to stay or leave~ protest against him if needed. His people are 100% behind him... no police or spy networks needed to establish Hugo Chavez's leading his country.

Yeah, except for the fact that he's removing democracy, and a number of political opponents have strangely gone missing or been found dead...
...where did you get that pile of BS from?! :D Hugo Chavez is a democratic leader.... plain and simple. Why would he resort to secret tactics after the people voted him in?? What your saying is illogical....

Show me evidence that he is tyranic.... :D

[Blackwater]

These are some of the areas a socialist system needs to have a political police: Forcing the factories to provide better conditions, or rid the factory of its owner.
Disarm the public to more easily enforce their policies. This always leads to tyranny.
And redistributing wealth requires force. No one gives up their money and property for free.

A popular revolution would just be the majority's suppression of the minority.

Remember, capitalists don't like being killed more than anyone else.

[Publius]

By expanding it through his bolivarian constitution, adopted by a free and fiar democratic vote? Chavez is demoratically elected and has 70% approval ratings, fuck even the US admits Chavez wins every election fair and square

http://economist.com/background/displaysto...tory_id=3749428 (http://economist.com/background/displaystory.cfm?story_id=3749428)

http://hrw.org/english/docs/2004/12/14/venezu9864.htm




Sources, evidence?

http://hrw.org/doc/?t=americas&c=venezu

[violencia.Proletariat]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2005, 01:52 PM
These are some of the areas a socialist system needs to have a political police: Forcing the factories to provide better conditions, or rid the factory of its owner.
Disarm the public to more easily enforce their policies. This always leads to tyranny.
And redistributing wealth requires force. No one gives up their money and property for free.
A popular revolution would just be the majority's suppression of the minority.

Remember, capitalists don't like being killed more than anyone else.
why do you need a "police force" to do any of this? we dont need peopel who have power over others.

1. If im not mistaken part of the aspects of socialism is that the workers run the factory, therfore bad conditions will vanish.

2. Why would you disarm the public? They are the ones who will make up the militias

3. No shit, but you dont need police to do this.

[Publius]

...where did you get that pile of BS from?! :D Hugo Chavez is a democratic leader.... plain and simple. Why would he resort to secret tactics after the people voted him in?? What your saying is illogical....

Show me evidence that he is tyranic.... :D

He was elected.

So was Hitler.

There's nothing illogical about a despotic caudillo taking a populist movement and using it to declare himself dictator.

It's happend before.

http://hrw.org/doc/?t=americas&c=venezu&document_limit=20,20

[KC]

There's nothing there that said he had his opponents killed. And many of those articles are one-sided.

[Andy Bowden]

Lets not forget that the "free media" helped organise a brief military dictatorship to overthrow Chavez - and few if any people have been arrested for this.

[Blackwater]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2005, 08:08 PM
1. If im not mistaken part of the aspects of socialism is that the workers run the factory, therfore bad conditions will vanish.

2. Why would you disarm the public? They are the ones who will make up the militias

3. No shit, but you dont need police to do this.
1. How will you get rid of the factory owner?

2. Disarming those who will have to bear the change. I.e. everyone.

3. Yes you do. How else are you?

[LSD]

1. How will you get rid of the factory owner?

That's what the revolution is.

Once the workers have taken control of the means of production, the "owners" will simply no longer exist. Sure, there'll be the guy who used to "own" the facotry, but once the workers are running things themselves, no one will pay attention to him.

He can yell and scream and give orders all day, but no one will care. Eventually, he'll have to get himself a real job.


2. Disarming those who will have to bear the change. I.e. everyone.

I'm sorry, that clause is lacking a conjugated verb phrase. I have no idea what you are trying to say.

A popular revolution is, by definition, popular, and a successful post-revolutionary society can only exist if it is what the masses want. Disarming the general public is counterproductive.

If you mean disarming select members of society who have proven to be a danger to others, then that is not difficult. The weapon producers will simply know not to give weapons to this particular person.

But most of the people who demonstrate themselves to be dangerous will probably not be permitted to hand around too long. Communism doesn't mean lawless, crminal acts (assault, murder, etc...) will still be prohibited.


3. Yes you do. How else are you?

That's what the revolutions for!

The trick is to abolish capitalist measurements of "wealth" such that redistribution is no longer nescessary.

[Blackwater]

You're getting away from how Socialism fail politically to how it fails economically.

If the factory owner is removed, there is no one to bring in raw materials and sell the finished product. All the workers know how to do is produce.

For the government to make drastic changes in society those who will go under the most changes have to be stripped of their right to resist.

And the way to bring the poor out of poverty is not to take wealth away.

[KC]

If the factory owner is removed, there is no one to bring in raw materials and sell the finished product. All the workers know how to do is produce.

And they can't learn?


And the way to bring the poor out of poverty is not to take wealth away.

Of course it is! Wealth is finite. One rich person makes hundreds of people poor. And socialism is about giving everybody equal amount of wealth. Communism is about removing wealth.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

The big question, I think, is can CAPITALISM operate without political police?
I'm pretty sure history has shown us the answer.

(Fred Hampton sayz no.)

[Ele'ill]

The big question, I think, is can CAPITALISM operate without political police?
I'm pretty sure history has shown us the answer.


Sure it can. It stands as good a chance as any political system. Overtime someone siezes the reins and exploits. No neccessarily in that order either.

[Blackwater]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2005, 02:56 AM


If the factory owner is removed, there is no one to bring in raw materials and sell the finished product. All the workers know how to do is produce.

And they can't learn?


And the way to bring the poor out of poverty is not to take wealth away.

Of course it is! Wealth is finite. One rich person makes hundreds of people poor. And socialism is about giving everybody equal amount of wealth. Communism is about removing wealth.
If they were qualified to be able to bring in more and sell more, they would be management.

And wealth is infinite. If it were a set number; it would be zero.

[Blackwater]

Originally posted by Virgin Molotov [email protected] 3 2005, 02:58 AM
The big question, I think, is can CAPITALISM operate without political police?
I'm pretty sure history has shown us the answer.

(Fred Hampton sayz no.)
That would be impossible because Capitalism requires small government and liberty for maximum business efficiency.

[KC]

If they were qualified to be able to bring in more and sell more, they would be management.


They can learn rather quickly.

[LSD]

You're getting away from how Socialism fail politically to how it fails economically.

That's because you're drawing an arbitrary line between the two. Communism does not recognize a "private sector".

Besides, you started us down the "economics road": 1. How will you get rid of the factory owner?


If they were qualified to be able to bring in more and sell more, they would be management.

"qualified"?

What exactly "qualifies" a worker for a management job in capitalsim? Education? Training? "Looking the part"?

Sorry, but all workers are "qualified" to manage their means of production, capitalism simply does not offer them the opportunity to.


And the way to bring the poor out of poverty is not to take wealth away.

No, it's to abolish wealth entirely.

For rich to exist, poor must as well. Its the nature of capital-based economies.

[Blackwater]

Yes, there are qualifications required to own a factory. The owner has to make deals with the companies that produce the products for his factory, sell the product, and expend the capital required to buy and sell. Not to say a worker can't, some do make it to management—but that's usually when there is an incentive, the majority of them stay workers.

Just as the worker cannot become the factory owner, the factory owner cannot become the worker. They're dealing with two separate skills. And the factory owner has usually had more education.


Wealth is all based on the two. Where as there might be poor people in a capitalist country, they may still be rich, compared to those in a controlled economy. But can anyone define wealth?

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Factory owners rarely do any of the things mentioned in yr post - there are layers upon layers of managers and co-ordinators who do those things - but these people are still basicly workers.
Furthermore, once you take capitalism out of the equation, many of the tasks you'd mentioned become irrelevant - we'd need many fewer managers.

Will there always be different jobs requiring different sets of skills - of course! Nobody expects garbagemen to suddenly up and run the hospitals (mind you, we'll see where technology goes . . .). Does this necessitate a class division? Does it necessitate ownership? Fuck no!

[Blackwater]

Originally posted by Virgin Molotov [email protected] 4 2005, 04:58 PM
Factory owners rarely do any of the things mentioned in yr post - there are layers upon layers of managers and co-ordinators who do those things - but these people are still basicly workers.
Who pays them?

[KC]

Payroll