Question to socialists

I want to ask a few questions.

How strong of a central government do you advocate for?

How much taxation or what method should be set on people for payment of social programs

What are the thoughts on freedom of speech and freedom of religion?

What amendments in the constitution do you disagree with?

What is the biggest problem with america?

What is the biggest cause of murder in the 20th century?

Should central government be relegated?

Should freedom of political thought be relegated?

Should families be dis banned and children belong to state rather then parents?

Thank you

I want to ask a few questions.

How strong of a central government do you advocate for?

How much taxation or what method should be set on people for payment of social programs

What are the thoughts on freedom of speech and freedom of religion?

What amendments in the constitution do you disagree with?

What is the biggest problem with america?

What is the biggest cause of murder in the 20th century?

Should central government be relegated?

Should freedom of political thought be relegated?

Should families be dis banned and children belong to state rather then parents?

Thank you

I want to ask a few questions

How strong of a central government do you advocate for?

How much taxation or what method should be set on people for payment of social programs

What are the thoughts on freedom of speech and freedom of religion?

What amendments in the constitution do you disagree with?

What is the biggest problem with america?

What is the biggest cause of murder in the 20th century?

Should central government be relegated?

Should freedom of political thought be relegated?

Should families be dis banned and children belong to state rather then parents?

Thank you

Ok, moving this from /politics to /OI though.

As an 'orthodox' Marxist I advocate for the overthrow of the current constitutional order which defends private property and houses a professional bureaucracy, an elite army and a police apparatus, all of these are against mass rule and in favor of minority rule.

I also advocate the overthrow of the global capital market system, used to squeeze countries into submission by merely raising interest (Greece) or globally selling more of a certain item (oil, now happening by Saudi-Arabia) in order to hurt other economies that are a perceived threat (Russia).

Linked to this I want to overthrow the international hierarchy of states, of which there are a few (USA + allies as the main hegemon, Russia + allies and a few 'rogue' states that defy any of the established orders).

What I propose in its place is a genuine democracy, that is, society ruling itself. This is the essense of the democratic republic: The working class, the vast majority of society, would seize political power this way (and can only seize power this way). A lot is still to be said about what constitutes a 'democratic republic', but at the least it should hold dear to the principle of subsidiarity ('work together where needed or desired, do locally what you can or should') throughout its structure. As such, and as a direct answer to your question, there is a mix of 'centralism' and 'decentralism'.

All indirect taxes should be abolished. This is more of an aim than a direct proposal, but it is based on the idea that public expenditure should be as transparant as possible.

Second, I think 'social programmes' need to be taken care of by the organised working class, alleviating and possibly abolishing the need for social programmes through education collectives, strong unions, cooperatives and more.

Freedom of speech is a part of democracy.

'Freedom of religion' is more nebulous. If you mean the 'freedom' of settled institutions to keep people backward on education (evolution, etc), sex (sexual freedom, prescriptions, sexual education), women rights, etc. Then sod that. I'm all in favor for confiscating all church, mosque, synagogue and temple land and assets where they aren't strictly used for religious purposes.

If by 'freedom of religion' you simply mean the individiual's right to believe in, for example, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, then sure.

I suppose you're referring to the US constitution. Alas, as a European I'm too unfamiliar with it to make a sound critique of it. I can say however that the second amendment, the right to bear arms, is something of great inspiration to any Marxist. Yes, we want universal education in the use of (advanced) weapons, yes we want people's militias.

Could you be a bit more specific?

Capitalism, in a broad sense.

I already answered this.

I already answered this.

No Marxist actually states that children should be property of the state. That is ridiculous. If you actually heard such a description somewhere, that person or source was sadly misinformed. Marxists do take issue with the 'nuclear' family though and propose more communal forms of living. In the end, that is of course a personal choice, what Marxists obect to is the fundamental role the nuclear family unit is playing in today's society, something that is anti-human in fact.

No problem. Welcome to the forum.

none

there are no social programs. The individuals needs are meet according to their need.

There is no state to take away freedom of speech or religion. I believe that people should be able to voice their opinions in a communist society.

10. A lot of the amendments are pointless in a communist society.

capitalism

the consequences of capitalism

non-existent more like

No. Reactionary thoughts should be debated to show the errors.

wtf. hell no.

np

.



If one exists at all it should be very weak and directly controlled by all of the people, it should be directly democratic if it exists at all. Other than that a central government shouldn't exist at all.



There should be no taxation at all, individuals shouldn't be forced to pay out anything just to live or to support something they're not directly a part of.



People should be perfectly allowed to have their own personal autonomy, so they should be allowed to have their own personal beliefs and not be subjected to harm for their beliefs and neither should they harm others with their beliefs. Reactionaries shouldn't be given leg room and their thought directly counteracted with progressive thought.



None at all.



Capitalism, to echo the others above.



Most definitely it is capitalism because poverty drives individuals into desperation. Desperation leads the impoverished individuals down the road to committing terrible things just to survive in capitalist society.



If a centralized government exists at all it should be very weak and very large, encompassing a huge number of individuals that are directly elected and recallable. It should exist as a means of helping defend and spread the revolution as well as to maintain some semblance of order if things get seriously out of hands to defend the individuals that comprise that society. It shouldn't be a bourgeois state, it should be a proletarian state with a huge number of revolutionary tendencies participating.



Political thought should be allowed to flow, but reactionary and liberal sentiment must be directly and immediately combatted.



Families shouldn't be affected in a negative way, if a group of individuals stay together as a family that should be that groups personal choice based in their own consent, no one should be forced to do anything. Certainly some will fall apart, but perhaps others will be formed and a more collectivized family order will take place without a central head leading it. No one should be the property of anyone, all individuals should be allowed to maintain their own personal autonomy and do as they please.

I'm a little confused, you are suggesting that we abolish private property law and turn into a complete military police state?

What I propose in its place is a genuine democracy, that is, society ruling itself. This is the essense of the democratic republic: The working class, the vast majority of society, would seize political power this way (and can only seize power this way). A lot is still to be said about what constitutes a 'democratic republic', but at the least it should hold dear to the principle of subsidiarity ('work together where needed or desired, do locally what you can or should') throughout its structure. As such, and as a direct answer to your question, there is a mix of 'centralism' and 'decentralism'.

Also, your suggestion of global capital market I couldn't agree with more, however it's government intervention in economics that allocate for these things to happen. In a society ruling itself who would be managing the police state you suggested?

Who would balance budget on direct taxes then? And what happens if someone can't pay?

What about religious benefits towards the community, like hospitals and fund raisers would that be allowed? What if a social program allocates for something against the military or police are the people then protected by rights even if they are a minority?

But if we have a peoples militia then wouldn't we need property rights to make sure that property, or gun ownership, isn't taken

Well you are European so maybe you can't truly answer that question.

Capitalism isn't the biggest cause of murder it's democide, strong federal governments purges, actually true capitalism would eliminate democide because it doesn't benefit government in any means

If it is regulated then the police would need to be the people, and the military would need to be the people, which would eliminate the idea of republic and be a complete democracy. Considering the mob rule mentality there can not be representatives

Then if children don't belong to the state what's to protect the minority teaching the child something the majority doesn't agree with, the only protection would be civil liberties and rights in the form of representation which would then disregard everything of mob rule.

Sorry I'm just a little confused

I want to ask a few questions.

How strong of a central government do you advocate for?...

...How much taxation or what method should be set on people for payment of social programs...

...What are the thoughts on freedom of speech and freedom of religion?...

...What amendments in the constitution do you disagree with? ...

...What is the biggest problem with america?...

...What is the biggest cause of murder in the 20th century?...

...Should central government be relegated?...

...Should freedom of political thought be relegated?...

...Should families be dis banned and children belong to state rather then parents?...

...Thank you

I want to ask a few questions.

How strong of a central government do you advocate for?

How much taxation or what method should be set on people for payment of social programs

What are the thoughts on freedom of speech and freedom of religion?

What amendments in the constitution do you disagree with?

What is the biggest problem with america?

What is the biggest cause of murder in the 20th century?

Should central government be relegated?

Should freedom of political thought be relegated?

Should families be dis banned and children belong to state rather then parents?

Where exactly did you read that? I proposed the exact opposite:


A common liberal misunderstanding: The problem is indeed the state, however the state is itself the product of class society and the particular 'modern' expression of it is a specific reflection of capitalist society.

And I didn't suggest a police state. Communists are anti-state and propose to replace the current, very vertically organised, state with a semi-state. That is, a 'state' only in the sense that it expresses the political hegemony of the vast majority in society, that is, a radical democracy.

Technical details. I don't have blueprints to be rolled out. This is up for society at that point to solve.

I don't think religious institutions should own hospitals to begin with. The very concept seems utterly alien to me. In my opinion religious institutions have proven themselves to bulwarks of conservative ideology. They should be dismantled until nothing is left besides their sole religious task.

Another common misconception: When communists talk of 'property', we aren't talking about your toothbrush, computer or, indeed, gun. What we are talking about is property having a social impact: infrastructure, industry, financial institutions, etc.

Perhaps so.

What is this 'democide'? I have never heard of it.

It is indeed a democracy, with republican elements as explained earlier. Hence the term 'democratic republic'. 'Mob rule' is a fear that only lives in the minds of people vested in the current minoritarian order.

You seem to conflate rather different things to make an argument. I think you're making a logical fallacy here and there is no reasonable way I can respond to it, so I won't.

Clearly so.

No 'central government', at least in the way I suspect you mean it. Administrative functions will be 'centralised' to some extent; but an authority to (let's say) assure safe maritime standards doesn't have to have any connection with a body tasked with making sure bridges don't fall down.



As there's no money, I don't know what 'taxation' and 'social programmes' would mean.



Should people be allowe to shout 'fire' in a crowded theatre? Should people be allowed to preach the murder of others? I'm not sure they should. As for religion, people can have invisible friends if they wish, but they shouldn't have the power to force the rest of us to acknowledge them.

Freedom of thought is not the same as freedom of speech.



Which constitution?



Capitalism.



Alienation.



What do you mean, 'relegated'?



What do you mean, 'relegated'?



Disbanded by whom? Are these ('belong to parents' or 'belong to state') the only two options? If so, why?



No worries.

However, i completely disagree with what you constitute as a misinterpretation of capitalism. You say that the state is a product of class society, and the modern expression is reflective of capitalism, however we have not practiced true capitalism.

With the policies of governmental interference with economics, Keynesian economics, we have strayed away from capitalism in all aspects.

In america its happened since the federal reserve act, which forces a tax to a private banking firm that controls the economy with interest rates. This, is not true capitalism, this is a form of socialized corporate crony capitalism. Your statement, the state is a reflection of its policy is very true, however the policy is not true capitalism.

So then property is defined as only being concerned to social impact, which for me is yet another confusing understanding because the whole purpose for gun ownership is in the means of social impact.

Democide is mass killings by governments, its not a word in the dictionary but it has been used as scholars to show the genocides committed by governments across the world.

was it the fear of the minority when the witch hunts happened?

Or how about the spanish inquisition?

There are many cases when the majority was completely wrong.

However, you allocate for a democratic republic, which is practiced in america by using representatives in a democratic setting to propose law and to protect rights.

So you cant answer the question about whether or not a family holds more bearing over the child then the community? Like i said, if a family decides they know whats best for a child, and the community differs its idea, who holds more control over the child? Its not allocating for an argument, its allocating for an answer to the functions of proposed system.

Thank you

How are the individual needs met? Case example, there is a person who has no food how does he get food?

When was the last time America truly practiced capitalism?

That is wrong, it's actually big government that has caused more murder then anything, it's called democide.

So then what is to protect civil liberties? If a group of bandits rob you how do you get back at them?

If you raise children with the mentality of capitalism and the community doesn't like that, who protects the family?

I completely agree with that, however I feel it is impossible to have a nation with an ordered form of democracy without representation. There is a need for central government and that is the protection of civil liberties, but it should be small.

No taxation is true capitalism, by my understanding, because your working and saving everything for yourself rather then your community.

So you disagree with the entire bill of rights? So then should there be property laws or freedom of speech laws? Didn't you state people should be able to do what they want basically but yet what is to protect that speech? Wouldn't law be needed to be put in place for that?

true capitalism weakens government.

Depressions that you refer to is initiated by policies and subsidies, or governmental intervention in economy.

Case point, the American war on drugs creates black market for drugs causing people to kill to survive, which would be Governmental policy.

In socialism, there will be no government, that is, the administrative organs of the socialist society will not govern over people but administer things and direct the process of production. The public authorities in socialism, to shamelessly plagiarise myself from an earlier thread, will be more like the power company (if it acted on behalf of the entire society instead of a small group of capitalists) than a state bureaucracy. This public power would presumably be centralised to an extreme degree as the global flow of goods, services and people makes society-wide planning unavoidable.

But we can't clap our hands and change the present society into a socialist one. There needs to be a period of transition corresponding to the rule of the proletariat as a class. Here, as Trotsky put it, the state is like the flame that burns brightest before it goes out. The proletarian state would be an extremely interventionist one when it comes to the historic tasks of the proletariat - safeguarding the revolution, socialising the economy, smashing whiteguards etc. I don't "advocate" this, any more than I "advocate" that people fall down if they walk off a cliff. Shooting people and so on is an unpleasant business - but it has to be done.



Again, the answer to this depends on whether we're talking about socialism or the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat. In the former, there are no taxes, there is no money, and there are no "social programs" as they are generally understood. In the latter, who knows? Economic circumstances differ from region to region, and change in time - to predict something as specific as the tax rate would be the height of folly.



Again, it depends... in socialism, there would be no organ that could restrict speech, although, the ideas of every epoch depending on the material basis of society, much of what is objectionable about speech today would no longer exist or have any relevance. That one bitter old dude shouting homophobic abuse would be entirely powerless, and people would probably just avoid him.

In the D.o.t.P., of course, the rule is as in any civil war - if you undermine morale or call for support for the reactionaries and interventionists, you might find yourself shot.



The one about diaspora voting, the one about marriage...

Oh wait, you were talking about the US constitution, weren't you? Generally we "disagree with" the entirety of the constitution as it enshrines the right to private property. The Second Amendment isn't half bad, but its original intention was to have an armed force of petty property owners, whereas we socialists advocate a general militia of armed workers.



Mosquitoes in Miami. Sure, the US is an imperialist capitalist superpower, but have you ever been to Miami? I have. I'm not planning on going back.

I mean, the problem is always the same - capitalism - whether we're talking about the US or Botswana.



"Cause" is one of those words that people think are unambiguous but are in fact ambiguous as hell. Ultimately, most murder can be traced to capitalism, from the "crimes of passion" arising from poverty and insecurity to King Leopold's bloody rule in the Congo. Immediate causes differ, of course. I don't know if more people were killed by racists instigated by the ruling class than were burned with napalm and died in the concentration camps in Indochina and elsewhere. It doesn't really matter.



What central government? That of the bourgeoisie? We want to relegate it to Hell. Or the one of the proletarian dictatorship? That's like asking us if we should put the noose around our necks and jump.



See above.



The family will disappear in socialism - not because it has been "disbanded" but because the material conditions have changed and the family is no longer necessary. Housework will be socialised, as will the raising of children, women will have full control over their sexuality and reproductive capacities, including free abortion on demand at any point of the pregnancy, the oppression of all those whose lives are incompatible with the bourgeois family and its rigid gender roles, particularly homosexuals and transsexuals, will be abolished - thus the family will be destroyed without a single ordinance specifically targeting it.

I'll have to keep it brief.


That is the neoliberal ideological consensus, yes. It is just wrong. Marxists understand capitalism to be a specific mode of production where commodity production is central. At the core of this is the expansion of capital through this commodity production for (exchange-)value. Wage labour is employed to create commodities and, thereby, a surplus, which is realised on the market.

Taking this basic, yet very specific, process and looking at the world, one can only conclude that capitalism is hegemonic across the planet. Therefore, all the rest of society (like the state) flows from this basic premise.


Keynesian economics is still capitalism, be it not with your favoured policies.


This is ideological nonsense, yet illuminating in explaining where you stand.


I may well not have been clear. Property is defined as having a role in the economic process, in the process of capital accumulation. Guns are no means of production.


Could you cite said scholars?


Yes.


Yes.


Of course, but with new input and feedback it can correct itself. Democracy and the scientific method has a tendency to correct itself.


The Unites States, which I presume you mean by 'america' (as opposed to Canada, Cuba, etc), is an oligarchic or plutocratic state, quite clearly so, it is not a democratic republic.


I see your point now. Answering it costs me too much time now though. I may get back to it. But I favour communal upbringing.


No problem.

Thank you, your responses have been clearer then anyone. However, i disagree with your philosophy because i would argue that with that being said, it creates an out of control monarchy with the purposes of socialism. Now, i know that its in the attempt to create benefits for who deserve it, but it also creates tyrannical leaders like history has shown us. Youre suggestion that we need to basically get rid of anyone that is against the revolution, am i correct? Then, my question would be to you, do we completely disband civil liberties in the name of revolution?

Well socialism has broad forms of practice when it comes to economy, i'm asking for personal interpretation that's all. I feel, since you consider yourself a revolutionist of "proletariat" then are you advocating for no oversight by the public in the sense of taxing? It would very, yes, but who would also control the power on the rate?

Well the reasoning for freedom of speech is to protect people from tyrannical government, its a way to allow people to continue to inform themselves on current affairs. Are you really advocating for anyone that disagrees be shot? This is complete tyrannical government at its finest.

How can we have an armed militia if we are not allowed to talk about protecting our liberties from the government? If we ban property rights, we ban civil liberties. If we ban freedom of speech, we ban the militia.

Like i have stated, we have not practiced capitalism in america for over 100 years

Yes it completely matters, because like i have stated, its powerful tyrannical governments that have caused the greatest atrocities in the 20th century, which is of what you advocate for.

i apologize i meant regulate

So then, when i have a child it goes directly to the state with no question, and if i want to try to give the child advice i get shot for disrupting the revolution? Do you consider this any form of power abuse by government?

No, I don't think "we need to basically get rid of anyone that is against the revolution" is a good paraphrase of my position. The thing is, the revolution will coincide with a civil war, as the overthrown ruling classes and their hangers-on try to win back state power. In conditions of civil war, if you undermine morale in any way, you get penalised in some way - most likely shot in fact. If you propagandise for the enemy, you get penalised. And so on. This isn't something socialists invented, it's simply how civil wars are carried out. The war against the British and Loyalists in the US was no different.

If someone is "against the revolution" but keeps their mouth shut during the civil war, there is no reason to shoot them. Not for that at least.



The tax rate would obviously be controlled by some public organ. As the d.o.t.p. is a form of class rule, it would ultimately be controlled by the proletariat organised in some manner - probably through workers' councils of some description (although the workers' council is not sacred - what is important is that organs of proletarian rule be working organs and not talk-shops but the specifics are best left to the people carrying the revolution out).



As I said, it's not that anyone who disagrees would be shot, but civil wars are generally not the best time for the flourishing of freedom of thought. It's unfortunate, but as I said, that's how it is. The two civil wars in the US were no exception, neither were the many civil wars in France etc.



The dichotomy between the workers' militia and the government does not exist in a revolutionary d.o.t.p. - the workers are the government, they are the ruling class. The notion that "if we ban property rights, we ban civil liberties" doesn't stand up to any scrutiny either. What is, for example, the contradiction between the socialisation of iron smelters and the right to free abortion on demand at any point of the pregnancy?



This is one of those things that only American libertarians believe, along with the alleged difference between democracy and a republic. Capitalism means private ownership of the means of production, generalised commodity production and wage labour. That is not some Marxist redefinition of the term, that is how we describe relations of production that everyone (except a very vocal minority) agrees are capitalist. America still has private ownership of the means of production, generalised commodity production and wage labour.



Ha, really? How is it, then, that the area where everything was private property and where no government could interfere - the Congo Free State - managed to outdo all of those "tyrannical governments", barring perhaps those supported by the cartels of German industrialists and financiers?



It still doesn't make a lot of sense. What does "regulating the central government" mean?



There is no state in socialism. The child would most likely be raised socially, as has in fact been the norm for most of the existence of the human species. If you want to give the child advice, knock yourself out.

Libertarians don't know anything about Socialism apart from what they've read from Ludwig Von Mises and heard from Fox Lies. This is my opinion, having been one.