Question to socialists

[Libertie76]

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

[Q]

I want to ask a few questions.

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

How strong of a central government do you advocate for?

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'.

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

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.

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

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.

What amendments in the constitution do you disagree with?

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.

What is the biggest problem with america?

Could you be a bit more specific?

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

Capitalism, in a broad sense.

Should central government be relegated?

I already answered this.

Should freedom of political thought be relegated?

I already answered this.

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

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.

Thank you

No problem. Welcome to the forum.

[JahLemon]

I want to ask a few questions.

How strong of a central government do you advocate for?

none

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

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

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

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.

What amendments in the constitution do you disagree with?

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

What is the biggest problem with america?

capitalism

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

the consequences of capitalism

Should central government be relegated?

non-existent more like

Should freedom of political thought be relegated?

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

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

wtf. hell no.

Thank you

np

[Sinister Intents]

I want to ask a few questions

.

How strong of a central government do you advocate for?

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.

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

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.

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

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.

What amendments in the constitution do you disagree with?

None at all.

What is the biggest problem with america?

Capitalism, to echo the others above.

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

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.

Should central government be relegated?

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.

Should freedom of political thought be relegated?

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

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

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.

Thank you

[Libertie76]

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.

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

[Libertie76]

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

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

So your suggesting, by my interpretation, all amendments are pointless because there is no constitution or governing law.

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. Socialism or government intervention, actually, creates big government which has been root cause of the murder

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

Who regulates debate and what if someone doesn't agree with someone else who decides what is better for community

If you raise children with the mentality of capitalism and the community doesn't like that, who protects the family? Then wouldn't there need to be civil liberties to make sure kids don't belong to the state which would propose laws and regulations on private property rights allocating for a police force or a form of government? Otherwise, the child really does belong to the state.

[Libertie76]

.



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 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.

But what happens, for instance, if a community decides to hang Christians, wouldn't a central government be needed to protect those rights of the Christians?

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?


Like I said before it's central government, true capitalism weakens government. Depressions that you refer to is initiated by policies and subsidies, or governmental intervention in economy. Which is not capitalism. Case point, the American war on drugs creates black market for drugs causing people to kill to survive, which would be Governmental policy. Also, it is the government giving massive subsidies and using military might along with corporations that impoverish countries in the first place to force them into the black market. Then it's american government that allocates for a majority of sales of the black market. So, it's actually governmental policy and economic intervention that really lays the foundations for these terrible things you referred to. Capitalism, suggests, no governmental regulation on economy, and true free market capitalism would abolish the ability to create policies that force natural things into black market to begin with

That would require every citizen to understand law thoroughly as well as understand cause and error solutions in order to sustain a prosperous moral society. At this time I see that as being nearly impossible as well as impractical due to the vast amount of people in the world.

Who is going defend the society from the reactionary thought, and in a case of mob rule as you suggested why would you want to defend it?

It's not about property, however your allocating that a group of 20 people will know better what it is for my son or daughter then myself? You might not see that as a negative affect but I think a majority of people will. No one is property, but how old does someone have to be to make legal decisions? If my 7 year old says she's running away i wouldn't be able to stop her? And if I try to the community says yes she can go what would protect me from saying no she can't leave!

[Q]

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

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

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?

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.

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

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

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?

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.

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

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.

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

Perhaps so.

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

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

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

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.

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.

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.

Sorry I'm just a little confused

Clearly so.

[Blake's Baby]

I want to ask a few questions.

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

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.

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

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

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

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.

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

Which constitution?

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

Capitalism.

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

Alienation.

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

What do you mean, 'relegated'?

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

What do you mean, 'relegated'?

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

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

...Thank you

No worries.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

I want to ask a few questions.

How strong of a central government do you advocate for?

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.

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

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.

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

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.

What amendments in the constitution do you disagree with?

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.

What is the biggest problem with america?

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.

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

"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.

Should central government be relegated?

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.

Should freedom of political thought be relegated?

See above.

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

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.

[Libertie76]

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.

I came to a misunderstanding of your suggestion that capitalism and private property need to be ratified and that its against mass rule, my apologies

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.

Cultures around the world use religion as a binding method in community, maybe it will be feasible to no longer advocate for church subsidies, which is another case of government controlling the economy. Churches owning hospitals, for instance however, is a perfect example of community funding towards public benefit. Which, in america, is the main reason of the argument on tax exemption for churches. Churches owning hospitals can be argued as a direct form of religious purposes used by the sole religious task. The mentality of destroying religious institutions will only create martyrs who fight those efforts. Lets remember, nero burned rome to kill christians and then look at what happened to rome. Maybe the best way to fight religion is to study and progress science.

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. Who dictates what is properly defined as social impact or not? Is a person building a house social impact? What if the house is built in worship to jesus christ? is that social impact? Its very confusing to figure out how to draw the line, unless you create a sense of laws that define what is what. But that creates a state which you suggest we need to be anti-state, as well as who will enforce the laws that define what is private property and what is the free ownership of small things, like toothbrush etc. etc. Its my conclusion that communism only works if everything you own belongs to the state, however your suggesting that i am wrong with that conclusion, that would make more sense in what you allocate for. No private ownership, everything belongs to the community.

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.

I dont necessarily believe that mob rule is only in the minds of fear of the minority, lets look at history for examples again, 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. This, however practice, allocates for a central government to protect the rights of people. The only true way such a system can work is if the system gets the most limited amount of funding, and has no oversight of the economy or else it becomes corruption. Hence, laissez-faire capitalism. Although communism, works because the entire state owns everything but everyone owns the state correct? Like i said before however, what happens if people differ views and differ beliefs, such as you and i, do things change according to a 51% ruling? Will there be any protection of civil liberties in the proposed utopia?

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

[Libertie76]

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.

So then the person in charge of the Administration on your example bridge safety would be given the task by whom?

Social programs mean payment to communities in terms of not having food and so on and so fourth. So if there is no money, how do people get their wants? Is there any wants in the system you advocate for?

Well freedom of speech as long as it doesn't negate the civil liberties of other people, is my conclusion on the amendment, which of course is outlined by the US constitution.

Forcing the rest to acknowledge them and saying we have a civil right to prayer and warship are completely two different things. what if some one has the thought of changing the whole functions of society, will he be allowed to voice his opinions?

I apologize i mean the american constitution, i didn't realize how world wide this forum was

But, my argument has been, we haven't been practicing true capitalism in america, how could it be the biggest problem if it isn't practiced?

Alienation in the sense of a non informed public to the atrocities committed by government, then yes. If you're referring to non-intervention then you are completely wrong, because its that intervention that has caused more death then anything. Take a look at the middle east right now.

I don't recall which device i was using, but sometimes when i use my ipad it switches to a misspelling and i don't know how to fix it. I apologize, i mean regulated.

They are the two options i am aware of, unless you suggest that they belong to no body. However, in that question i am asking more blatantly what role do parents have in the upbringing of children, and what happens if they differ their beliefs on parental upbringing then the community, who holds more power the parent or the community?

[Q]

I'll have to keep it brief.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

Could you cite said scholars?

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

Yes.

Or how about the spanish inquisition?

Yes.

There are many cases when the majority was completely wrong.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

Thank you

No problem.

[RedWorker]

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

By going to the store and grabbing food.

When was the last time America truly practiced capitalism?

Capitalism is a mode of production which has been hegemonic since the Industrial Revolution. This does not refer to your "libertarian" utopia - such a time with minimum economic regulations already passed by, and it's gone now because it wasn't pretty.

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

"Big government" is a Newspeak term which holds no relationship to the efficiency of any government, freedom of any society, and so on.

Let's take some basic facts. 2700kcal multiplied by 7000 million worth of food are produced every year. This is enough to have everyone on a first-world diet. But millions of people die of starvation. And so on... I'd say it's pretty safe to name capitalism as the #1 cause of "murder" - a very abstract, ambiguous term to be using here. Capitalism isn't anyone's will, it's the natural product of certain material conditions.

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

In the new order, there can be no such "group of bandits" who can rob such a thing, which in reality can be nothing but the state anyway. You have to refute the whole of our view, not one of our views applied to the current situation.

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

We never entrusted the community with such a potential to interfere in personal matters - as long as these are consensual, there should be no interference. And capitalism cannot be a 'mentality' - it is a product of material, not ideal conditions.

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.

There would be representation.

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

Capitalism cannot exist without taxes - capitalism requires the state, which requires taxes. However, Marxism has an analysis which explains that the state is only the result of certain material conditions which, given the nonexistence of these, "withers away". Meanwhile, the most that so called "anarcho-capitalists" can say at best is that the state is done for when we destroy all existing ones - which obviously is not a very good analysis.

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?

Maybe while the state has not withered away yet.

true capitalism weakens government.

Capitalism creates the government.

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

Not true. Crisis is a natural result of capitalism, and can only be get rid of through increased consumption. While there is a crisis, consumption drops. The solution to all crises required government intervention which enabled the increase of consumption.

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

That's a dumb case of government policy, though.

If you're really interested in approaching our views, or just debating us, then I'd suggest a serious reading of these:

Communist Manifesto, Principles of Communism, The German Ideology.

[Libertie76]

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.

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?

[Libertie76]

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.

Capitalism is defined as a trade of economy by private owners not controlled by the state, commodity is essential in terms of big business making big money, but the policies created by the state create the big businesses and monopolize corporations. Your future example on democracy is the exact same as true capitalism, only in economic not political sense. If a company becomes a monopoly, the free market will eventually rectify it through competition, the worst thing would be state interference which is Keynesian economics.

Keynesian economics, is government influence of economy. Its no more capitalist then canada is socialist. It has aspects of capitalism, but it is not truly capitalist

Well then would building a house on a piece of land be considered property or what would it be considered?

Tried to post a link but it wont let me, It was termed by Professor, R Rummel. if you google it it will come up as first link with wikipedia explaining what it is in more depth

Its not a democratic republic because we've allowed policies of government through economics to dictate who is the ruling class. However, this would not occur if we had practiced true capitalism, which we have not been.

Thank you for your time, you seem like a well educated person and we might just disagree fundamentally on economics, which is the beauty of democracy. However, we definitely need to end the corruption in power and i am glad we are discussing our personal views on the subject.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

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?

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.

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?

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).

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.

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.

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.

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?

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

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.

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.

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?

i apologize i meant regulate

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

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?

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.

[Libertie76]

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.

I was asking about purpose of governmental policy, not the means to getting there.

The belief that we have not practiced capitalism is vitally true considering the corporatism that has been instilled on society. It's the corporate lobby's that allocate for tax subsidies and get them so on and so fourth. In a true capitalist state the government will have no over sight in production, but we have major oversight I production. Like I stated its as capitalistic as Canada is socialist.

When I ask about regulation, I am asking what if the people on the council decide they know what's better for the society then the citizens, is there any regulation on the power structure?

The right to free abortion is also flawed simply because it forces people to pay for something they don't necessarily agree with. So you are in favor of no more civil liberties then I am assuming, considering you are advocating for the forced payment to programs people don't agree with. Unless, of course I misunderstood your point.

America does not have private ownership of production with the creation of subsidies as well as bailouts. Those are both tax paid, remember the government has absolutely nothing so everything the government does is paid by citizens meaning if the government subsidizes farming industry, it creates regulations on farmers that only big business farmers can get past. We, as tax payers are paying for it through the government. So that is not private ownership, we have not had a private ownership through free markets in over a hundred years.

Well the history of the Congo free state simply shows more of my point Leopold lobbied for government money and controlled the country through strong governmental rule. He actually used the state as a means to basically rob the people of Africa which also caused forcing of higher taxes on workers He created free trade zones, still early forms of corporatism not capitalism, that allowed governments of Europe to monopolize in the region. This is monarchy expansionism with favors to corporatism not capitalism. Government oversight in economy... I think you do not understand what capitalism is. The acts passed even states that king Leopoldo has complete reign over the Congo. As well as he owned the land. That is no where near capitalism. A complete monopoly can not exist in capitalism by definition because it is no longer a free market.

Regulating government means who oversees the ones in charge.

In the term state it could be a reference to community, however, a parent can see their son or daughter and give advice but the community, or state, has more oversight then the parent. So you are suggesting that your neighborhood knows better for your child then yourself. That is another complete abandonment of civil liberty.

[Chomskyan]

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.

[Libertie76]

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.

Which is why I asked these questions so I can get a better understanding, however it seems like every single reply has contradicted itself in one way or another and yet I'm supposed to believe this "majority" ruling will cause unity with no political oversight?