Are (most) Socialists bullies?

[FredLC]

Horribly, horribly incorrect!

Socialism specifically rejects violence. It is communism which calls for the bloody uprising, followed by the Dictatorship of the Proletariat. To clairfy why socialism rejects this, we must look at the basic unit of politics. Conservatives believe that the base unit of politics is the family, liberals believe that it is individual and communists believe that it is class. Socialists, on the other hand, believe that it is society as a whole and that any kind of civil war or bloody uprising would tear society apart and thus defeat the original goals of Marx - which are freedom, equality and fraternity.

Any notion that Socialists desire a bloody revolution, or seek to take power by force is simply WRONG.

I don't agree much. May I bring up my own description of the communism/socialism relationship from another thread?

Communism is an economical system where the means of production are owned collectively. This ownership *in theory* does not have to represent a party or any authority of any kind. In fact, the absence of central authority is the point of communism.

The theoretical build of communism resemble enormously a form of enlightened anarchy, and it's not a "social system" just like bald is not a hairstyle - it's more about the lack of a "social system", which *should* have been outgrown by humanity by the time communism is reached.

To bury from scratch a common misconception, in communism there is private property - as long as the property is not a mean of production. That means you can keep from your underpants to your family jewels - what you "can't" own individually is a farm or a factory (I put this in quotation marks because in theory, this is less about "prohibition" than about the "extinction of the concept of owning supra-individual goodies").

Socialism, on the other hand, is an embryo, a transition formula between capitalism and communism, where a powerful central authority (not necessarily dictatorial) is committed to the redistribution of means of production. The failure of the communism theory seems to be that socialism, the intermediary, tends to deform into tyrannical entities (aberrations such as Stalinism, Maoism and Castrism) to perpetuate itself, and create a bureaucratic elite instead of s capitalistic elite, falling to the same problems of the previous system, added with a whole bunch of problems of it’s own.

Thing is, the theory of communism adopted the idea of armed resolution (probably, influenced by the successes of the French Revolution and of the US independence, which have given the world the impression that you could really change things with a will to fight and a noble heart), but it was very poorly executed in real world – specially because communism was envisioned originally as the path of development of a rich and modern society, where the wealthy of capitalism and the conscientiousness of people mixed together, creating the means and the mindset for the proletarians to take over.

What happened in the real world was the contrary. Poor, backwards countries adopted it as means to destroy failing states and rebuilt them with a new grand vision, without abiding to it’s theoretical construct, no less. Quite frankly, it’s no surprise it was such a failure.

Communism is a utopic goal, and Socialism, the means to reach it that has gone sour, in simple terms.

As for the actual thread question, well, I have my own set of theories, which I'll post when I have more time at my hands.

Regards .

 

[FredLC]

Moderator Action: Sorry, I apparently have closed this thread by accident when posting. Just re-opened it again now.

 

[Stapel]

Great!

I must admit the thread title is somewhat troll baiting.

However, I do agree with it.
We should make an important nuancation when talking about socialism. Generally, I have no problems with a government that is responsible for the well-being of the citizens, as long as this is kept to just that:
Making sure every person has a fair level of food, shelter, clothing, education and medical care.

But socialism, as we know it Western Europe, goes a lot further than that. Even to a level that I have started to hate it to the bone. IMHO, it's immoral, even criminal.

The biggets issues in NL, imho:
-Mismanagement in the healthcare sector is rewarded with an injection of tax-money (thought a great improvement was made recently).
-500.000 people get labour inability payments, though not being inable to work.

Furthermore, there are 1000s of small idiocies.
A typical social democracy spends billions on various subsidies. Mostly, the general idea behind it, is ok, but things have gotten rotten.
Why the hell is (my) tax money used for:
-acquiring football TV broadcast rights
-subsidies of theatre productions
-subsidies for train tickets
-The salaries of the twenty members of the committee that thinks about the reconstrcution of the island Tholen.

The last example might be an extremely unimportant one, but we have 1000s of such crap, here in NL.


And why is that?
Because socialist snobs think they know what is better for me.
That's bullying, and nothing else.

 

[Akka]

Actually, capitalists are much more into bully business, being obsessed by money and power, and resent socialism because it puts limit on the ability to get and use this power.

Bullies don't like rule, because it interfere with their own abilities to bully. So they just turn tables and say that preventing them to bully is to bully them


Of course, this is quite a bit caricatural, but seeing the imbecility of the opposite argument, and the total close-mindedness of people supporting it, I don't consider it worth to waste time and energy to make a solid argument that will anyway be totally overlooked. So for simple minds, I use simple argument.

 

[luiz]

There isn't really a 'founder' for socialism in the same way as communism; the closest you'd get is probably Trotsky?

Trotsky? OK.

In other words, socialists favour confiscating the agricultural production of the peasants to pay for industrialisation(Trotsky came up with this idea that was later implemented by Stalin), socialists favour the complete destruction of free iniative in all sectors of the economy and also favour the physical elimination of certain classes.

The conclusion is that socialists are not only bullies as they are pathologically authoritarian, completely blind from reality and, well, plain evil.

Note that I'm not trolling, it was a socialist who claimed that Trotsky is his intellectual forefather. I am just drawing the logical conclusion.

 

[Stapel]

but seeing the imbecility of the opposite argument, and the total close-mindedness of people supporting it, I don't consider it worth to waste time and energy to make a solid argument that will anyway be totally overlooked. So for simple minds, I use simple argument.

Come on Akka, you can do better than that.

 

[nonconformist]

Stapel, you seem to be arguing against frivolous tax spending.
Out of interest, do you oppose state-run education/nationalised healthcare?

 

[ComradeDavo]

I don't see what is so bully like about trying to help poor people

Just a small section of the panoplia of restrictions the popularly-known doctrine of Socialism offers today. I'm not picking on social justice and equality just about now, just on this interesting (and rather curious) desire to meddle and interfere in the affairs of private life. Or in other words, the regulations. Dear Socialists, why do you want to regulate us so much? Why are you not satisfied with the more simple (and arguably more efficient) method of the taxing of income?

Regulations? It's the conservatives that want to stop me smoking marajuana, limit my access to porn, stop me marrying a man and ban heavy metal gigs.....

Anyway, would you please actually define what you mean by 'Socialism' for us Aphex?

Are you talking about the types who want to own the means of production and nationalise everything? Because thats what Socialist tradionally means.
Or are you using the term broadly to cover anyone who supports a wealfare state?

 

[Akka]

Come on Akka, you can do better than that.

Of course I can. But as I'm limited by the average level of the audience right now, it would be a bit useless to develop anything further.

 

[Kozmos]

Beware Im socialist and that means I'm evil.YARRR!Has no one here heard of social democracy,or demosocialism *sigh*

 

[Stapel]

Stapel, you seem to be arguing against frivolous tax spending.

No, it is not only the frivolous tax spending. I mostly argue against the spending of tax, in order to regulate various aspects of society, that need no state-regulation at all.

Out of interest, do you oppose state-run education/nationalised healthcare?

About healthcare:
I think the (basic) demand side of it should be heavily regulated by the state. For the simple reason every citizen has a right to be insured for healthcare.
However, the supply side of healthcare should not be in the hands of the state. It seems outrageous to me. The ineffieciency of the healthcare sector is supported by the state! What is the idea of that?
Furthermore, due to modern, though extremely expensive technology, it will not longer be possible to guarantee the best care for all. in hte near future. That is a dificult ethical discussion, but some market-system might do the trick.


About education.
Basic education should be state run and tax-money funded. I don't see the point in private institutions for education until 18 years.

University and higher professional education (in NL) is now payed by the the parents of the garbage collectors and construction workers, while it is mostly used by the kids of doctors, lawyers and engineers.
A totally ridiculous system, if you ask me.....

A fair system would be to tax people higher, rated to the years of university attention. What about 0.25% more tax (for the rest of your life?) for each year you have attended university?
More freedom for universities is an absolute necessity over here.

 

[Stapel]

Of course I can. But as I'm limited by the average level of the audience right now, it would be a bit useless to develop anything further.

CFC has, afaik, never been different . It hasn't stopped you in the past!

 

[ComradeDavo]

No, it is not only the frivolous tax spending. I mostly argue against the spending of tax, in order to regulate various aspects of society, that need no state-regulation at all.

Which aspects?

Looking at some you mentioned earlier...

Why the hell is (my) tax money used for:
-acquiring football TV broadcast rights
-subsidies of theatre productions
-subsidies for train tickets
-The salaries of the twenty members of the committee that thinks about the reconstrcution of the island Tholen.

-In the UK we pay a liscence fee if we want to watch Television, and money from that fee would be used by the BBc to get football TV rights. I think thats fair enough, as alot of people who watch the BBC watch football.
-I can see your point here.
-I do know that ticket prices in the UK are extremly high, which is counter prouctive when it comes to getting people out of cars and into public transport. As tackling climate change is an important issue if subsidies will keep tickets cheaper then taht is a good thing.
-Fair enough.

A fair system would be to tax people higher, rated to the years of university attention. What about 0.25% more tax (for the rest of your life?) for each year you have attended university?

Well, generally 'rich' people went to uni, but not everyone who goes to uni becomes 'rich'.

 

[Hitro]

CFC has, afaik, never been different

You don't seem to know very far...

 

[amadeus]

Please point out where I said "socialists seek to deny the people access to whatever goods or services they desire"?

You don't have to say it to know that's the intended outcome.

 

[Aphex_Twin]

I didn't mean it as a troll, maybe a light flame, but the topic could be worth looking into.

Perhaps not limited to Socialists in themselves, but it is my observation that this category forms the bulk of the authoritarian groups today.

A 'bullie' is a person that seeks to impose his will on another person by forceful means. Force doesn't have to come from that specific individual (in our case, it comes from the government). If the reason for the application of force is the improvement of the person onto which that is being applied, it still qualifies as bully-ing.

So we have two propositions:
"We know what's good for you." and
"We know what's good for others."
both with the conclusion that "We must apply restrictions on you."

Naturally, from this stem other affirmations: "We must stop you from drinking and smoking", "We must stop you from taking jobs under certain conditions", "If you are an employer and hire someone, then you cannot, under any conditions, fire him without notarized, state aprooval", "If you produce a thing called 'banana', it must be 25.34 cm in length, 4.7 cm in diameter, it must have X curvature, ..."

We have no limit on how many restrictions can be applied. No ammount of personal freedom is not, one way or another, for a cause or another - up for grabs. And while it might not seem like a great deal, this incremental process does not stop or turn back. What is lost is generally not recovered.

 

[Gelion]

Freedom is not about doing what you want. Freedom is about doing what you want as long as it doesn't affect the freedom of others. Restrictions are therefore necessary to maintain peacefull order. If to you socialism is restrictions and you see that as a threat then I hope you never get to see what you call "real freedom". You would not survive it long enough.

 

[nonconformist]

About healthcare:
I think the (basic) demand side of it should be heavily regulated by the state. For the simple reason every citizen has a right to be insured for healthcare.
However, the supply side of healthcare should not be in the hands of the state. It seems outrageous to me. The ineffieciency of the healthcare sector is supported by the state! What is the idea of that?
Furthermore, due to modern, though extremely expensive technology, it will not longer be possible to guarantee the best care for all. in hte near future. That is a dificult ethical discussion, but some market-system might do the trick.


About education.
Basic education should be state run and tax-money funded. I don't see the point in private institutions for education until 18 years.

University and higher professional education (in NL) is now payed by the the parents of the garbage collectors and construction workers, while it is mostly used by the kids of doctors, lawyers and engineers.
A totally ridiculous system, if you ask me.....

A fair system would be to tax people higher, rated to the years of university attention. What about 0.25% more tax (for the rest of your life?) for each year you have attended university?
More freedom for universities is an absolute necessity over here.

So effectively you want everyone to have equal opportunities, which sounds very fair to me, and I agree with your economic outlook for once

 

[Mise]

University and higher professional education (in NL) is now payed by the the parents of the garbage collectors and construction workers, while it is mostly used by the kids of doctors, lawyers and engineers.
A totally ridiculous system, if you ask me.....

A fair system would be to tax people higher, rated to the years of university attention. What about 0.25% more tax (for the rest of your life?) for each year you have attended university?
More freedom for universities is an absolute necessity over here.

Well, university graduates earn a lot more than non-graduates, and hence (especially with a progressive tax system) would be taxed a lot more over the course of their lives anyway.

 

[Potatish]

Horribly, horribly incorrect!

Socialism specifically rejects violence. It is communism which calls for the bloody uprising, followed by the Dictatorship of the Proletariat. To clairfy why socialism rejects this, we must look at the basic unit of politics. Conservatives believe that the base unit of politics is the family, liberals believe that it is individual and communists believe that it is class. Socialists, on the other hand, believe that it is society as a whole and that any kind of civil war or bloody uprising would tear society apart and thus defeat the original goals of Marx - which are freedom, equality and fraternity.

Any notion that Socialists desire a bloody revolution, or seek to take power by force is simply WRONG.

Marxism calls for the bloody revolution and Dictatorship. True Communism, also known as Anarcho-Communism, calls for nothing of the sort. It requires a Socialist system of government to put everything in place, so that nobody is left in the dust (unlike in Capitalism, where many people don't get everything they need).

Anarcho-Communism is much like the Socialism you describe in the latter parts of your post, except for one thing: There is no government. The people govern themselves, free of "Big Brother".