Thread: How is Communism ethical?

Results 41 to 60 of 65

  1. #41
    Join Date Mar 2008
    Location traveling (U.S.)
    Posts 15,067
    Rep Power 64

    Default


    You cannot separate the tyrannical State from Communism if history is an iteration of empirical reality?

    It isn't -- there's no basis to say that historical events from a century ago would play out exactly the same way if a worldwide proletarian revolution were to take place today. It's intellectually lazy to say otherwise.

    That's why your terming of a 'tyrannical Communist state' is just propaganda on your part, for the social paradigm of private property. No one who's a revolutionary would *want* a supposed 'tyranny' to emerge -- it's just not in the politics or in the intentions on a mass scale.

    And this leads into another issue -- *why* did the Russian Revolution of 1917 eventually turn *into* Stalinism -- ? If you can't answer this then you don't understand history to begin-with.
  2. #42
    Join Date Dec 2003
    Location Oakland, California
    Posts 8,063
    Rep Power 164

    Default

    Jimmie Higgins

    I aim the principle of nonviolence at everybody unselectively, otherwise it wouldn't be a principle. In what way is nonviolence'ideological'? Once again you are framing Capitalism as a top down structure, when it is a free market (which also entails the free market of ideas).
    you’re ideology is just an excuse for the status quo.

    Where did capital for industrialization come from? Where did the workforce for early industry come from? Force was the main way these things were set up. The Americas were largely built by conscripted European and African people. Industrial workers who migrated to the US came from places like Ireland or Eastern Europe where they were faced with dispossession by force.

    Then you waltz into history like a baby doe, don’t see active bayonets pointed and assume this was all created peacefully. Like a colonial governor who takes over after the previous regime pacified the natives.

    Again, without the threat and potential for state force, how are rents collected? Why shouldn’t I just take over an empty store-front? How is property protected as a general rule without general enforcement?

    Your arguments don’t even make sense if we look at the last decade of history. If the state is an alien parasite on capitalism, why did various States all over the world bail out industries while cutting government services and spending? If the state is an end unto itself and self-perpetuating then “austerity” would not exist in the way it currently does. It would have been a popular political move to nationalize failing industries but states used state funds to rescue them... or nationalized then temporarily to hand them back when stability was restored.

    Nation states have qualitatively transformed in the last 200 years. This is because there is no such thing as a “state” that exists separate from society: there are feudal or capitalist states but not “states” that exist by and for themselves alone. Our societies “work” on a capitalist basis, capitalist states work to ensure that this continues and capitalists rely on states to make sure it does. In a practical sense for capitalism, the state helps settle internal firm competition, helps ensure external adherence to trade deals and property rights and in general tries to keep the lid on people rising up against business or the state... sometimes this means popular reforms to prevent capitalists from pissing people off to the point of revolt, sometimes this means direct violence.

    By ignoring the violence inherent in the system and claiming that it is non-violent (as long as you narrow the scope of capitalism and ignore all the historical context), you are simply providing ideological excuses.
  3. #43
    Join Date Jan 2018
    Posts 24
    Rep Power 0

    Default

    Where did capital for industrialization come from? Where did the workforce for early industry come from? Force was the main way these things were set up. The Americas were largely built by conscripted European and African people. Industrial workers who migrated to the US came from places like Ireland or Eastern Europe where they were faced with dispossession by force.
    I don't see how any of this is greatly relevant?

    Your arguments don’t even make sense if we look at the last decade of history. If the state is an alien parasite on capitalism, why did various States all over the world bail out industries while cutting government services and spending? If the state is an end unto itself and self-perpetuating then “austerity” would not exist in the way it currently does. It would have been a popular political move to nationalize failing industries but states used state funds to rescue them... or nationalized then temporarily to hand them back when stability was restored.
    you just answered your own question. Bailing out failing industries is not capitalistic at all. Unless we allow the unsuccessful to fail and the successful to rise, then you are simply left with a false image of the market, artificially manipulated by the State. You are confusing State action to the benefit of the wealthy as State action in the preservation of Capitalism. Bailing out a failing industry is not upholding private property, because it is stealing from someone else (either through taxation or inflation) to do so.

    ckaihatsu, I was responding to someone else with the statement you quoted. The example of "empirical reality" being inferred from history was used by Antoichus to discredit the idea of a Stateless or Libertarian form of Capitalism.

    And this leads into another issue -- *why* did the Russian Revolution of 1917 eventually turn *into* Stalinism -- ? If you can't answer this then you don't understand history to begin-with.



    What do you mean? Do you want me to tell the objective course of events or my theoretical position?
  4. #44
    Join Date Mar 2008
    Location traveling (U.S.)
    Posts 15,067
    Rep Power 64

    Default


    ckaihatsu, I was responding to someone else with the statement you quoted.

    You're being very *vague* again, ALC -- which post? Which statement?



    The example of "empirical reality" being inferred from history was used by Antoichus to discredit the idea of a Stateless or Libertarian form of Capitalism.

    Again vague -- check yourself to see how you could possibly communicate more clearly / specifically.


    ---



    And this leads into another issue -- *why* did the Russian Revolution of 1917 eventually turn *into* Stalinism -- ? If you can't answer this then you don't understand history to begin-with.


    What do you mean? Do you want me to tell the objective course of events or my theoretical position?

    I'll rephrase: What was the most significant factor that put the October Revolution on a course towards Stalinist control?
  5. #45
    Join Date Jan 2018
    Posts 24
    Rep Power 0

    Default

    You're being very *vague* again, ALC -- which post? Which statement?
    Forget about it... I was simply using Antiochus's same logic to infer a negative inevitability of Communism, as he did to the idea of a Stateless form of Capitalism.

    I'll rephrase: What was the most significant factor that put the October Revolution on a course towards Stalinist control?



    Well, there could be a hundred different answers to this question and they could all be valuable answers. Perhaps that it took on a highly partisan form; that right from the start it was brutal is suppressing opponents, even other Communists; that it experienced a civil war, thus setting the precedent of Military dominance to the end of sustaining communism ideologically; it was heavily propagandised; that innately, Marxism as an ideology provides its ideologues with a worldview that allows them to justify their immorality, therefor, even an oppressive and murderous dictatorship can be justified in the name of 'Liberation'. You can say that it was down to Lenin's ill health even. Russia at the time was already accustomed to centralised absolute authority with the Tsarists system, you could argue that this, to some degree, facilitated it. Or the mere fact that everyone was starved and bloody from the fighting and that they'd desperately accept anything so long as they got fed.

    Why? What's your answer?
  6. #46
    Join Date Mar 2008
    Location traveling (U.S.)
    Posts 15,067
    Rep Power 64

    Default


    Well, there could be a hundred different answers to this question and they could all be valuable answers. Perhaps that it took on a highly partisan form; that right from the start it was brutal is suppressing opponents, even other Communists; that it experienced a civil war,

    The problem I have with most treatments, including yours, is that they situate the revolutionaries as the 'bad guys' first, and then tie all historical developments back to this 'bad guy' thesis.

    I argue that this can't be done for *any* historical event, at *any* scale, because there are always *larger* factors going on at the same time (larger society), that influence and shape the trajectory of the subject being examined.

    For example, many people of color are currently behind bars due to being directly *blamed* for events that they were a part of. The bourgeois criminal justice system is more interested in having an official 'perpetrator' to punish rather than looking at surrounding factors that effectively mitigated the subject's 'free will' and accompanying responsibility in the event that they're singly being blamed for. (See my general-purpose framework, 'History, Macro-Micro -- politics-logistics-lifestyle', at post #10.)

    I posit that the same dynamic applies to something as large-scale as a revolution, and that the Bolsheviks are usually directly *blamed* for the outcome of the whole revolution, when in fact many *other* parties / factors were also at-play, but are usually kept out of historical consideration, such as the Whites:




    U.S. troops in Vladivostok, August 1918



    [T]he British and French governments decided upon an Allied military intervention in Russia. They had three objectives:[11][better source needed][not in citation given]

    • prevent the German or Bolshevik capture of Allied material stockpiles in Arkhangelsk

    • mount an attack helping the Czechoslovak Legions stranded on the Trans-Siberian Railway[not in citation given]

    • resurrect the Eastern Front by defeating the Bolshevik army with help from the Czechoslovak Legions[not in citation given] and an expanded anti-Bolshevik force of local citizens and stop the spread of communism and the Bolshevik cause in Russia.

    Severely short of troops to spare, the British and French requested that President Wilson provide American soldiers for the campaign. In July 1918, against the advice of the United States Department of War, Wilson agreed to the limited participation of 5,000 United States Army troops in the campaign. This force, which became known as the "American North Russia Expeditionary Force"[12] (a.k.a. the Polar Bear Expedition) were sent to Arkhangelsk while another 8,000 soldiers, organised as the American Expeditionary Force Siberia,[13] were shipped to Vladivostok from the Philippines and from Camp Fremont in California. That same month, the Canadian government agreed to the British government's request to command and provide most of the soldiers for a combined British Empire force, which also included Australian and Indian troops. Some of this force was the Canadian Siberian Expeditionary Force; another part was the North Russia Intervention. A Royal Navy squadron was sent to the Baltic under Rear-Admiral Edwyn Alexander-Sinclair. This force consisted of modern C-class cruisers and V and W-class destroyers. In December 1918, Sinclair sailed into Estonian and Latvian ports, sending in troops and supplies, and promising to attack the Bolsheviks "as far as my guns can reach". In January 1919, he was succeeded in command by Rear-Admiral Walter Cowan.

    The Japanese, concerned about their northern border, sent the largest military force, numbering about 70,000. They desired the establishment of a buffer state in Siberia,[14] and the Imperial Japanese Army General Staff viewed the situation in Russia as an opportunity for settling Japan's "northern problem". The Japanese government was also intensely hostile to communism.

    The Italians created the special "Corpo di Spedizione" with Alpini troops sent from Italy and ex-POWs of Italian ethnicity from the former Austro-Hungarian army who were recruited to the Italian Legione Redenta. They were initially based in the Italian Concession in Tientsin and numbered about 2,500.

    Romania, Greece, Poland, China, and Serbia also sent contingents in support of the intervention.

    ---



    thus setting the precedent of Military dominance to the end of sustaining communism ideologically; it was heavily propagandised; that innately, Marxism as an ideology provides its ideologues with a worldview that allows them to justify their immorality, therefor, even an oppressive and murderous dictatorship can be justified in the name of 'Liberation'. You can say that it was down to Lenin's ill health even. Russia at the time was already accustomed to centralised absolute authority with the Tsarists system, you could argue that this, to some degree, facilitated it. Or the mere fact that everyone was starved and bloody from the fighting and that they'd desperately accept anything so long as they got fed.

    Why? What's your answer?

    So in this response, you're going so far as to blame the Marxist *ideology* for a revolution that needed to spread to the working class of Germany, and all of Europe.

    The *fighting* you mention was necessary because of the counterrevolutionary factor from *without* -- the several imperialist countries that sent troops over, to *make* it into a 'civil war' (an inapt misnaming).

    Here's what was at stake:



    The Decree on Land ratified the actions of the peasants who throughout Russia gained private land and redistributed it among themselves. The Bolsheviks viewed themselves as representing an alliance of workers and peasants and memorialized that understanding with the Hammer and Sickle on the flag and coat of arms of the Soviet Union. Other decrees:

    • All private property was nationalized by the government.

    • All Russian banks were nationalized.

    • Private bank accounts were expropriated.

    • The properties of the Church (including bank accounts) were expropriated.

    • All foreign debts were repudiated.

    • Control of the factories was given to the soviets.

    • Wages were fixed at higher rates than during the war, and a shorter, eight-hour working day was introduced.

    And the following could be considered as 'the beginning of the downslope', as a result of the multi-foreign invasions:



    Policies[edit]

    War communism included the following policies:

    1. Nationalization of all industries and the introduction of strict centralized management

    2. State control of foreign trade

    3. Strict discipline for workers, with strikes forbidden

    4. Obligatory labor duty by non-working classes

    5. Prodrazvyorstka – requisition of agricultural surplus (in excess of an absolute minimum) from peasants for centralized distribution among the remaining population

    6. Rationing of food and most commodities, with centralized distribution in urban centers

    7. Private enterprise banned

    8. Military-style control of the railways

    Because the Bolshevik government implemented all these measures in a time of civil war, they were far less coherent and coordinated in practice than they might appear on paper. Large areas of Russia remained outside Bolshevik control, and poor communications meant that even those regions loyal to the Bolshevik government often had to act on their own, lacking orders or coordination from Moscow. It has long been debated[by whom?] whether "war communism" represented an actual economic policy in the proper sense of the phrase, or merely a set of measures intended to win the civil war.[1]

    And that led into the objectively-necessary backtracking, which fed right into the geographically constrained nation-state formulation, for Stalinist rule:


    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Economic_Policy
  7. #47
    Join Date Jan 2018
    Posts 24
    Rep Power 0

    Default

    So? the Stalinist dictatorship still remains just one of many other Communist regimes that were/are tyrannical and murderous.

    what is your point? How does this make Communism ethical? Even if it all went to plan in Russia, it would remain unethical.
  8. #48
    Join Date Jan 2018
    Posts 24
    Rep Power 0

    Default

    For example, many people of color are currently behind bars due to being directly *blamed* for events that they were a part of. The bourgeois criminal justice system is more interested in having an official 'perpetrator' to punish rather than looking at surrounding factors that effectively mitigated the subject's 'free will' and accompanying responsibility in the event that they're singly being blamed for. (See my general-purpose framework, 'History, Macro-Micro -- politics-logistics-lifestyle', at post #10.)
    Everything is always someone else's fault... In reality, it's largely due to the replacement of the father figure with the Welfare State in black communities that underpins all this crime (though that does not absolve responsibility from the individual). Once again, the State is providing terrible education to welfare dependent children, not sure what this has to due with Capitalism. Best not get into all that anyway, it's not really on topic of the thread
  9. #49
    Join Date Feb 2015
    Posts 539
    Rep Power 11

    Default

    Libertarian Capitalist, no one actually gives a fuck. Capitalism isn't "ethical". Its "ethical" to you because you are a dog of its ideology, nothing else. You're just the court jester telling everyone how the king has a right to rule, now fuck off. You've had your shit pushed in this thread, if you are too stupid to see that then there is no point talking with a subhuman.
  10. #50
    Join Date Mar 2008
    Location traveling (U.S.)
    Posts 15,067
    Rep Power 64

    Default


    So? the Stalinist dictatorship still remains just one of many other Communist regimes that were/are tyrannical and murderous.

    what is your point? How does this make Communism ethical? Even if it all went to plan in Russia, it would remain unethical.

    I *don't agree* with your insistence on 'ethical means' for a revolution, because 'ethics' will always have to take a backseat to empirical interests anyway -- just look at current *bourgeois* practices that don't give a shit about who they bomb, collateral damage, civilians being killed, etc. That's because the rule of force is used by bourgeois *interests* to stay in power, whatever specific individuals they may be. The same would hold true for a *proletarian* revolution where vague nitty appeals to 'ethics' would be identical to appeals to act in some kind of 'divine' way, which also is left ill-defined. Ditto for 'morality'.



    Everything is always someone else's fault... In reality, it's largely due to the replacement of the father figure with the Welfare State in black communities that underpins all this crime (though that does not absolve responsibility from the individual). Once again, the State is providing terrible education to welfare dependent children, not sure what this has to due with Capitalism. Best not get into all that anyway, it's not really on topic of the thread

    Well, the board is *meant* for political-type discussions, so going off on tangents is okay as long as there are participants for it.

    You obviously lean towards the *right*-wing side of the state, since you're invoking patriarchy here.

    I'll remind that people don't *choose* where and what-family they're born into, so specific family conditions are quite separate from the individual's needs from society, etc. -- either the individual can get fulfillment of their needs from the particular family they're born into, or else they can't, and that's where the state *can* potentially step in and provide a safety net instead of expecting 'the market' -- which is even *more* impersonal than the family or the government's social services -- to pick up the slack.

    This all speaks to the issue of collectivism, since we can ask what humanity is supposed to do in situations where one *cannot* live independently, for whatever reason, and/or derive well-being from the market dynamic, again, for whatever reason. It's not wise to be so dismissive of organized (possibly state) social help when people have been born into *disempowering* situations -- which is often due to institutional racist conditions.

    For types like you the tipping, determining issue can be summed-up as private-vs.-public -- many large-scale problems are obviously unaddressed by the preponderance of segmented, balkanized, even conflicting, private interests, so the 'public' sector, such as it is, would be in a leftward direction from the 'center' of the nation-state.


    G.U.T.S.U.C., Individualism - Tribalism



  11. #51
    Join Date Dec 2003
    Location Oakland, California
    Posts 8,063
    Rep Power 164

    Default

    I don't see how any of this is greatly relevant?
    you don’t see how the violence needed to build capitalism is relevant to the question of if capitalism is non-violent? Lol, that’s just willful ignorance then.

    Capitalism, in fact any class system, relies on violence of some sort to maintain that society and its class divides. In societies where you are the direct property of a master, then your boss, the feudal lord is your “state” - he can flog you or reward you etc. capitalism is different because we sell our labor to a class of people. They are not our direct masters and so this created “problems” for early capitalist societies so instead of 1 to 1 repression of feudalism where a lord decides where you can go or spend your time, general laws governing the population were introduced. Early on, these laws were semi-feudal so if a masterless man was caught on the highway, they could be taken and made an apprentice of a manufacturer. But later this became generalized policing and police forces. In the US police were first introduced to patrol urban slaves (who lived more or less like workers, but part of their wages went to their owner) and Irish immigrants. These were the pools of cheap labor and so capitalists relied on the state or police to take the place of individual masters.

    In fact most of the features we currently associate with “the state” are new, feudal states had different needs and were therefore different in character and features. One can not understand modern states without understanding its relationship to capitalist society, and cap society can’t be understood without looking at the connection between the state and capital.
  12. #52
    Join Date Mar 2008
    Location traveling (U.S.)
    Posts 15,067
    Rep Power 64

    Default


    Everything is always someone else's fault...

    This part of yours is worth addressing in more detail -- it's practically *wishful thinking* on the part of reactionaries like yourself that people should be *forcibly individuated* by life-necessary economic participation through the market mechanism and its resulting social ethos of narcissistic-level individualism.

    With this statement you're effectively denying that there's a common-denominator universality to existence, amongst all stripes of people, and even animals. If a situation arises where fault needs to be assigned, it's certainly *convenient* to just point fingers at someone who may have been involved in some 'situation', but this is just too facile an approach to be valid and effective.

    *Everyone* lives in a social context of some kind, and these social linkages and inter-involvements inescapably give rise to something *greater* than this-or-that individual, which can be called 'human culture' of one kind or another. It's this larger *context* of pre-existing culture -- currently a bourgeois-hegemonic one, overall -- that has a profound impact on the qualities of *everyone* born into it, since we're inherently social creatures and we're profoundly influenced by culture as we grow and develop out of childhood.

    With this statement all you're doing is making it sound as though blame / fault can always be 'cleanly' attributed to one or another person, despite the fact that we're socialized from birth into a human-social world that is certainly *not perfect*, not to mention any complexities around an incident itself. Often the scope of examination remains with just the incident itself, without being concerned with *how* a person may have been *socialized* into a predisposition for some type of aberrant behavior -- since not all upbringings are perfect, either.

    It's a deep flaw in (class-riven) societal administration that the general social *conditions* around a given type of repeating-pattern transgression -- let's say petty theft -- are not 'fixed', or adjusted, as a part of reviewing why this kind of crime has happened, and has happened for as long as class society has been in existence. Shouldn't we prefer to *improve* social conditions so that this kind of problem no longer repeats, going-forward -- ? And yet that doesn't happen, as the ruling class favors *your* approach of *criminalizing* certain behavior, aberrant or not, so that fault *is* only seen at the individual scale, and no overall changes are made to *alleviate* the problems that cause people to need things that they can't afford in the first place.
  13. #53
    Join Date Jan 2018
    Posts 24
    Rep Power 0

    Default

    With this statement you're effectively denying that there's a common-denominator universality to existence, amongst all stripes of people, and even animals. If a situation arises where fault needs to be assigned, it's certainly *convenient* to just point fingers at someone who may have been involved in some 'situation', but this is just too facile an approach to be valid and effective.
    Did I deny the impact of external/non immediate factors? No, i didn't. Your example of the high crime rate amongst black youths in the US, i did not solely assign blame to the individual. Naturally, i assigned much of the blame to the State who has consistently tried to destroy and suppress black culture historically in the US (this cannot be denied). The welfare state has destroyed the importance of independence and responsibility amongst black culture, leading to high rate of single motherhood, thus resulting in a lack of discipline among male youths. State schooling fails them (and is not helped by the fact that it is categorically more difficult to educate a male from a single parent family). Prior to the welfare system for black communities that began in the 1960's, single motherhood was only around 7%... it's now at around over 70%. There is no doubt a major causal link there.

    My point that 'everything is always someone else's fault' was simply my deduction of what Marxist ideology feeds on, which is the abandonment of self-responsibility. Antiochus is a shining example of this, as he has protected all his internal responsibility onto me, which is why he can justify calling me 'subhuman', etc. Because he has ideology removed his own capability for evil, and has no responsibility (being the pure and untainted by what he sees as evil). Marxism truly feeds into this feeling of entitlement, as if you're owed everything by everyone, and that shows through the absolute collectivism of communism.
  14. #54
    Join Date Mar 2008
    Location traveling (U.S.)
    Posts 15,067
    Rep Power 64

    Default


    Did I deny the impact of external/non immediate factors? No, i didn't. Your example of the high crime rate amongst black youths in the US,

    I never specified any particular demographic -- you're imputing this.



    i did not solely assign blame to the individual. Naturally, i assigned much of the blame to the State who has consistently tried to destroy and suppress black culture historically in the US (this cannot be denied). The welfare state has destroyed the importance of independence and responsibility amongst black culture, leading to high rate of single motherhood, thus resulting in a lack of discipline among male youths. State schooling fails them (and is not helped by the fact that it is categorically more difficult to educate a male from a single parent family). Prior to the welfare system for black communities that began in the 1960's, single motherhood was only around 7%... it's now at around over 70%. There is no doubt a major causal link there.

    Why are you dictating lifestyles now? What does it matter whether a child has one or two parents?

    Once again you're being *ideological* and you're using ideological *propaganda* as an insufficient placeholder for actual politics (a position). Sure, state services could always be better, but that's a secondary concern to the fact / issue that at least some social services have *existed* at some periods in U.S. history.



    My point that 'everything is always someone else's fault' was simply my deduction of what Marxist ideology feeds on, which is the abandonment of self-responsibility.

    Again you continue to conflate lifestyles with political policy, which is a non-starter.

    'Self-responsibility' should *not* be an end unto itself because it categorically walls-out any social approaches that are incrementally more quasi-collective (the welfare state), or *actually* collective (workers collective control over production).

    'Self-responsibility' is too atomizing since it effectively apologizes for the way that things *are* organized by the state and/or economy, as a social safety net that the market mechanism *cannot* provide -- same for pollution, public transportation, education, and all other social issues that are *inherently* collective in nature.

    I happened to just come across an excellent real-world example of the privatization problematic, where rail workers are currently being scapegoated and blamed for the private-based mismanagement of the rail infrastructure, for the sake of profits:


    Canadian USW Rail Workers Harding & Labrie Are Not Guilty! Drop The Charges NOW!

    + YouTube Video
    ERROR: If you can see this, then YouTube is down or you don't have Flash installed.



    ---



    Antiochus is a shining example of this, as he has protected all his internal responsibility onto me, which is why he can justify calling me 'subhuman', etc.

    The reason he called you 'subhuman' is because you're unable to be *social* (socio-political) at all. Your whole 'political' line isn't really politics because you don't even forward any kind of combined social *approach* -- you think economics should be left to the (unplanned, hands-off) market mechanism instead of a / any material process being collectively, *consciously* determined for implementation by those who do the actual work for it.

    As things are now the bourgeois state *does* fill-in, to some extent, for the areas of society that could *never* be properly addressed by the private sector, like for emergency child welfare, etc. Yet you eschew even *this* nominal level of social cooperation around human need. Private concerns, like yours, are *not* politics -- they're the *rejection* of any commonality among people, and the rejection of any common-based *approach* to those commonalities.



    Because he has ideology removed his own capability for evil, and has no responsibility (being the pure and untainted by what he sees as evil). Marxism truly feeds into this feeling of entitlement, as if you're owed everything by everyone, and that shows through the absolute collectivism of communism.

    No, Marxism is *not* about encouraging a feeling of 'entitlement' to what few bourgeois-government-based social services may still be available -- it is saying that intra-cooperative state social services are an insufficient *stand-in* for what should really be happening, which is the full *workers* control of all social production.

    Just as society doesn't need vast self-serving bureaucracies for 'government', neither does it need the same in the *private* sector -- accumulated wealth just spurs elitism since those with wealth will be more socially-prioritized than the needs of those who do *not* have wealth and must work in order to have a place in society.
  15. #55
    Join Date Jan 2018
    Posts 24
    Rep Power 0

    Default

    For example, many people of color are currently behind bars due to being directly *blamed* for events that they were a part of
    yes you did site a particular demographic...

    Why are you dictating lifestyles now? What does it matter whether a child has one or two parents?
    At what point did I dictate any lifestyle? It is true that the welfare state has made the father figure almost redundant in poor black communities and this undeniably feeds into the high crime rate. I don't think single motherhood should be induced on mass to a certain demographic by the State... this does not mean i am dictating people's lifestyles.

    Again you continue to conflate lifestyles with political policy, which is a non-starter.
    You're right... the political policy of Adolf Hitler had nothing to do with his lifestyle or personality; the political policy of Pol Pot had nothing to do with his lifestyle or personality; the same goes for Donald Trump? Of course there is an inextricable link between one's political ideology and their personality and lifestyle.

    'Self-responsibility' should *not* be an end unto itself because it categorically walls-out any social approaches that are incrementally more quasi-collective (the welfare state), or *actually* collective (workers collective control over production).
    No, it does not. what you are essentially saying is that you do not believe a society of self-responsible individuals can voluntarily contribute to any kind of collective action. On this basis you must therefor rule out the idea of any kind of voluntary communism (which you already have by the proposal of imprisoning political dissidents). I believe that charity, if effectively applied to the market, could be a very effective way of providing collective, but most importantly, voluntary aid for social good. The difference is that the welfare state provides these services, firstly, on the fundamentally unethical basis of taxation, and secondly, with no accountability what-so-ever, as it does not have to provide any evidence of it's efficiency as all it's would be donations are violently removed via taxation. The mere fact that welfare has arrison through the State is testament to how it could function far better in market environment.

    The reason he called you 'subhuman' is because you're unable to be *social* (socio-political) at all. Your whole 'political' line isn't really politics because you don't even forward any kind of combined social *approach* -- you think economics should be left to the (unplanned, hands-off) market mechanism instead of a / any material process being collectively, *consciously* determined for implementation by those who do the actual work for it.
    You are still failing to comprehend the cumulative nature of how the market is directed. It is truly the simplest of concepts... supply and demand. It makes me 'subhuman' because I don't want to live in a collectivised hellhole with next to zero social mobility... oh I see.
  16. #56
    Join Date Jan 2018
    Posts 24
    Rep Power 0

    Default

    Okay, concerning the video you linked.

    The issue there is that the State has made it increasingly hard to hire and maintain labourers through minimum wage laws, health and safety laws, etc. This is why the railway company is unable to hire a sufficient amount of workers. The State is compromising the safety of the railway company by making it too expensive and more legally risky to hire people.
  17. #57
    Join Date Mar 2008
    Location traveling (U.S.)
    Posts 15,067
    Rep Power 64

    Default


    yes you did site a particular demographic...

    For the sample scenario of 'petty theft', no, I didn't:



    It's a deep flaw in (class-riven) societal administration that the general social *conditions* around a given type of repeating-pattern transgression -- let's say petty theft -- are not 'fixed', or adjusted, as a part of reviewing why this kind of crime has happened,

    ---



    At what point did I dictate any lifestyle? It is true that the welfare state has made the father figure almost redundant in poor black communities and this undeniably feeds into the high crime rate. I don't think single motherhood should be induced on mass to a certain demographic by the State... this does not mean i am dictating people's lifestyles.

    Yes, you *are* dictating people's lifestyles -- if some particular government implementation of social welfare has secondary, knock-on effects then the policy needs to be improved so that damage to recipients is no longer tolerated -- but this is *still* separate from the lifestyles that you're eschewing, like single motherhood or a 'redundant father figure'. What *should* count is how children are being socialized into larger society, which *is* an ongoing social issue considering the history of enslavement, and the current conditions of enslavement through imprisonment and prison labor (of color) exploited for fractions of real wages.

    Again, your silence regarding state policies of *punishment* show you to not be as unbiased around the function of the state as you claim to be. Where's the parallel outrage regarding the invasion and decimation of *foreign countries*, or the ongoing welfare for the rich through tax breaks, etc. -- !



    You're right... the political policy of Adolf Hitler had nothing to do with his lifestyle or personality; the political policy of Pol Pot had nothing to do with his lifestyle or personality; the same goes for Donald Trump? Of course there is an inextricable link between one's political ideology and their personality and lifestyle.

    I'm not going to defend these dictators, of course, but one's lifestyle or personality is not *nearly* as significant to others, and to society as a whole, as their *policies*. That's because *everyone* has a 'lifestyle' of some sort, but *not everyone* has official state-sanctioned *power*, as over determining the policies of government that affect millions and billions around the globe.


    ---



    'Self-responsibility' should *not* be an end unto itself because it categorically walls-out any social approaches that are incrementally more quasi-collective (the welfare state), or *actually* collective (workers collective control over production).


    No, it does not. what you are essentially saying is that you do not believe a society of self-responsible individuals can voluntarily contribute to any kind of collective action.

    A collectivism / collection 'action' (or policy) doesn't *not* depend on 'self-responsible individuals' in the sense of prioritizing a societal ethos of *self-sufficient* individuals, which is what I think you *really* mean with that term. As long as a sufficient number of people are pitching-in to provide common goods and services for *everyone*, they themselves can 'irresponsibly' take from that resulting social production, with no negative consequences for others or society as a whole.

    In other words how much of a problem can an errant, 'non-self-responsible' individual *be* to a fully collectivized society and its social production -- ? If even *many* people happen to be 'non-self-responsible' in such a social order, it wouldn't *have* to be a problem -- maybe they need dedicated attention, from those who would consent to *provide* such attentions, for members of society who, for whatever reason, are unable to be responsible for their own actions. Ditto for the physically disabled, the emotionally overwrought, the developmentally disabled, etc.



    On this basis you must therefor rule out the idea of any kind of voluntary communism (which you already have by the proposal of imprisoning political dissidents).

    Allow me to clarify -- there would be a *transitional* period, the time of a mass-based uprising against class rule, through to the complete disempowerment of rule based on ownership of capital. This is usually termed 'socialism', then leading into a permanent state of humanity as fully globally self-collectivized, or 'communism'.

    I suggest the 'put counterrevolutionaries in skyscrapers' strategy for the period of the 'socialism' *transitional* time, as evidenced from the last line of that proposal (at post #10):



    Once the revolution is completed all such prisoners could then be released because they and their reactionary ideas would no longer have any traction in such a fully post-capitalist social order.

    ---



    I believe that charity, if effectively applied to the market, could be a very effective way of providing collective, but most importantly, voluntary aid for social good. The difference is that the welfare state provides these services, firstly, on the fundamentally unethical basis of taxation, and secondly, with no accountability what-so-ever, as it does not have to provide any evidence of it's efficiency as all it's would be donations are violently removed via taxation. The mere fact that welfare has arrison through the State is testament to how it could function far better in market environment.

    Well, if the welfare state / public sector is purportedly 'inappropriate' for the provision of needed social services, due to unaccountability, there'd be no difference in accountability if the *private* sector was relied-upon for the same. It's a prescription for potential unending 'market failures', simply if *charities* happened to be underfunded, as the *welfare state* is today.



    In economics, market failure is a situation in which the allocation of goods and services is not efficient. That is, there exists another conceivable outcome where at least one individual may be made better-off without making someone else worse-off. Market failures can be viewed as scenarios where individuals' pursuit of pure self-interest leads to results that are not efficient – that can be improved upon from the societal point of view.[1][2] The first known use of the term by economists was in 1958,[3] but the concept has been traced back to the Victorian philosopher Henry Sidgwick.[4]

    Market failures are often associated with time-inconsistent preferences,[5] information asymmetries,[6] non-competitive markets, principal–agent problems, or externalities.[7]

    Public goods are both non-rival and non-excludable (i.e., public goods are not only non-excludable)[8] thus existence of a market failure is often the reason that self-regulatory organizations, governments or supra-national institutions intervene in a particular market.[9][10]

    ---



    The reason he called you 'subhuman' is because you're unable to be *social* (socio-political) at all. Your whole 'political' line isn't really politics because you don't even forward any kind of combined social *approach* -- you think economics should be left to the (unplanned, hands-off) market mechanism instead of a / any material process being collectively, *consciously* determined for implementation by those who do the actual work for it.


    You are still failing to comprehend the cumulative nature of how the market is directed. It is truly the simplest of concepts... supply and demand. It makes me 'subhuman' because I don't want to live in a collectivised hellhole with next to zero social mobility... oh I see.

    It's 'supply and demand' according to *exchange values* -- if people don't have enough money they are denied *housing*, *warmth*, *toilets*, even food, etc., because they're summarily *excluded* from participation in the market system, a 'market failure'.

    *No one* wants to live in a collectivized hellhole -- and that's not the intention of revolutionaries anyway. You're using a Stalinistic strawman just because the events of the 20th century happened to favor that kind of strongman formulation for the geographically constrained, nationally-isolated imploded revolution in Russia.



    Okay, concerning the video you linked.

    The issue there is that the State has made it increasingly hard to hire and maintain labourers through minimum wage laws, health and safety laws, etc. This is why the railway company is unable to hire a sufficient amount of workers. The State is compromising the safety of the railway company by making it too expensive and more legally risky to hire people.

    I don't agree with your scapegoating of minimum wage laws, and these locomotive engineers are paid well above the minimum wage, anyway.

    Also, look at *your* concern, for 'the safety of the railway company', when those workers could *readily* run the day-to-day operating of the railroads all on their own, collectively -- and *well* -- instead of having to take shit from management.
  18. #58
    Join Date Mar 2008
    Location traveling (U.S.)
    Posts 15,067
    Rep Power 64

    Default


    Also, this is just suburban-type racist hysterics -- the crime rate has been *decreasing* since the 90s, and is currently at historic *lows*:




  19. #59
    Join Date Jan 2018
    Posts 24
    Rep Power 0

    Default

    Again, your silence regarding state policies of *punishment* show you to not be as unbiased around the function of the state as you claim to be. Where's the parallel outrage regarding the invasion and decimation of *foreign countries*, or the ongoing welfare for the rich through tax breaks, etc. -- !
    How many times do I have to repeat myself? Seriously, tell me. How many times do you want me to say it? I'll put it in bold so you don't miss it this time...

    I don't support State violence

    I'm not going to defend these dictators, of course, but one's lifestyle or personality is not *nearly* as significant to others, and to society as a whole, as their *policies*. That's because *everyone* has a 'lifestyle' of some sort, but *not everyone* has official state-sanctioned *power*, as over determining the policies of government that affect millions and billions around the globe.
    I don't see how it matters if you have 'state-sanctioned power' or not. this makes no difference to the fact that one's lifestyle and personality can reflect and will influence their political policies.

    Allow me to clarify -- there would be a *transitional* period, the time of a mass-based uprising against class rule, through to the complete disempowerment of rule based on ownership of capital. This is usually termed 'socialism', then leading into a permanent state of humanity as fully globally self-collectivized, or 'communism'.

    I suggest the 'put counterrevolutionaries in skyscrapers' strategy for the period of the 'socialism' *transitional* time, as evidenced from the last line of that proposal (at post #10):
    Therefor it is violent, unethical and tyrannical. Listen to what you're saying... you want to lock people up for their thoughts.

    Well, if the welfare state / public sector is purportedly 'inappropriate' for the provision of needed social services, due to unaccountability, there'd be no difference in accountability if the *private* sector was relied-upon for the same. It's a prescription for potential unending 'market failures', simply if *charities* happened to be underfunded, as the *welfare state* is today.


    Would you give to a charity with a proven track record of efficiency in achieving their goals, or one that is inconsistent and poorly managed? This is the premise upon which charity could be applied to the market to establish a voluntary collective system for social good. The welfare state isn't just 'underfunded', its 'safety net' is cast too broadly to widen the range of State dependence, and as it has no accountability, the pooled taxation can be spend where the State desires it. All the welfare state is, is an attempt at lessening the symptoms of State intervention into the market in the first place It's a self feeding cycle. of course, you argue that charity does the same thing for the inevitable 'market failures', only, the State and the Welfare State are inextricably connected and so out of self-interest create more dependency, whereas, a charity is simply a body within the market; it does not have political power to artificially preserve itself.

    It's 'supply and demand' according to *exchange values* -- if people don't have enough money they are denied *housing*, *warmth*, *toilets*, even food, etc., because they're summarily *excluded* from participation in the market system, a 'market failure'.
    There is inevitably going to be 'market failures' in any system (despite your belief in the infallibility of communism). The State is the institution that create barriers in the marketability of people's labour. If a person is unskilled and not very productive, and an employer is compelled by the State to pay them more than their value, then that person is going to be excluded. And let's say that person is black or gay, and unskilled, maybe the employer doesn't want to take the risk of hiring them encase they receive a lawsuit facilitated by State 'equality' Laws. Of course, with some, it cannot be attributed to any institution, some people fall on hard times, or are simply unlucky in life (hence why charity should be more exalted than the welfare state).

    *No one* wants to live in a collectivized hellhole -- and that's not the intention of revolutionaries anyway. You're using a Stalinistic strawman just because the events of the 20th century happened to favor that kind of strongman formulation for the geographically constrained, nationally-isolated imploded revolution in Russia.
    You do not care what people want; only how to satisfy your ideology. Because you do not like the system (for whatever reason: guilt, envy, greed...?) you selfishly want to force your way onto everyone else whether they like it or not. You claim I am using a 'Stalinistic strawman' yet I am only reflecting what you are telling me. Such as that you want to imprison people for their thoughts being the most major concern, then of course i am inferring from the general authoritarian attitude of left wing politics and it's violence in extreme groups like ANTIFA, that you admit support for.

    Also, this is just suburban-type racist hysterics -- the crime rate has been *decreasing* since the 90s, and is currently at historic *lows*:
    Sure, the fact that blacks disproportionately commit more violent crime than any other demographic in the USA is just 'violent hysterics'. It's a fact, and it's directly linked to the subordination of the father figure in black families caused by the mass intrusion of the welfare state into poorer black communities. Now that's institutional racism!
  20. #60
    Join Date Dec 2003
    Location Oakland, California
    Posts 8,063
    Rep Power 164

    Default

    Your “black fathers” theory is from the 60s and was part of the great society welfare ideology.

    You’d be much better off blaming the state for incentivizing the destruction of black communities during mid century urban planning and incentivizing segregated red-lining housing development.

    But, you know, that’s actual history and facts and you seem indifferent towards that.

    It would make a great case for how the state caused inequality, but libertarians won’t go there because a systemic view weakens their “the poors just have an inferior cultural values” views. Not to mention that it leads to the conclusion that correcting this inequality would require reinvestment into social services for people barred from gaining home equity.

Similar Threads

  1. Communism: What Would the Utopia Look Like?
    By The_Marxie_Physicist in forum Learning
    Replies: 58
    Last Post: 6th September 2015, 14:07
  2. Capitalism is economically invalid, period.
    By Lowtech in forum Opposing Ideologies
    Replies: 36
    Last Post: 22nd September 2013, 10:32
  3. Replies: 134
    Last Post: 28th June 2012, 13:47
  4. How would Anarchy ever even work?
    By safeduck in forum Learning
    Replies: 149
    Last Post: 28th November 2011, 21:00

Posting Permissions

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