1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

Gather 'Round Ye Socialists and Justify Your Means!

Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by newfangle, Jan 22, 2004.

  1. newfangle

    newfangle hates you.

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2002
    Messages:
    7,046
    Location:
    Waterloo, ON
    Ok, this will be my last stab at uncovering what exactly makes socialists, leftists, altruists, egalitarianismists, and all permutations and combinations of these similar ideologies tick!

    It is a reality that the ONLY way the ideals of these folk can be obtained is through the threat of force and force itself.

    So....how is it justified? Doesn't it contradict the more passive-like nature of these schools of thought?

    Posts of a few sentences or less would be greatly appreciated, because if any justification for violence actually exists, it shouldn't take more than a paragraph to say.
     
  2. Pongui

    Pongui Deity

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2002
    Messages:
    4,342
    I must only be an altruist under threat of force?
     
  3. Bozo Erectus

    Bozo Erectus Master Baker

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2003
    Messages:
    22,389
    Poor newfangle, people are trying to force him to be nice.
     
  4. FredLC

    FredLC A Lawyer as You Can See! Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2002
    Messages:
    5,389
    Location:
    Vitória, ES, Brazil
    I guess that you will forgive my larger response than, for I won’t justify violence while I will still challenge your point.

    All systemic endeavors of society, including economic model, require “violence” to a degree. This is true about socialism, “leftism”, altruism and “egalitarism” as you perceive them (as in forcing the rich to share their economical accomplishments), but it’s also true about capitalism, conservatism, selfishness and individualism.

    What exactly do you think prevent the hordes of poor and hungry people from robbing supermarkets, invading mansions, stealing limos, taking over banks, etc? Do you believe that it is a “natural sense of respect for the obvious justice of the conservative social and economical approach to life”, or anything else that can be linked with willingness or acceptance of their condition?

    Sorry but it isn’t so. It’s the use of force, or threat of it, that makes the world functions as we understand it.

    Don’t believe me? Than remove force from equation. Revoke all penalties from the world, like death sentence, prison, fines, anything at all that has the purpose of hurting those who fail to obey society chosen paradigms and standards of right and wrong. Let’s see than for just how long will people accept to be hungry knowing that there are granaries filled grains waiting for better market conditions; how many people will accept to be homeless knowing that there are people which own houses ten, twenty time as large as what they need, almost empties; how many people will accept to see their children lack schooling and clothing when there are kids from others that have so many things that they couldn’t use them all not even once in their whole life times.

    Just see what happened in Iraq right now. In the very minute that the threat of force was removed (and a power vacuum existed for a short time period), the population went after everything the privileged had, and they were deprived from. The very minute.

    So, we can have a whole argument about the inherent value of “violence and threat of violence” as a political instrument to guarantee the work ability of society (when I’ll probably ask you if you have any alternative to it at all, while I quote Montesquieu’s doctrine “If man were angels, there would be no need of laws”), but that would be an altogether different discussion than the one you proposed, that foolishly assumed a depreciative and inferior ground to policies of left-wing leaning.

    No quite so, as I said. A left-wing domain would include violence just as much as a right-wing domain, the only difference would be a change of targets. The very essence of governments is factually the exclusive use of violence (named “police power”) for the purpose of granting the mechanisms of the social body.

    My friend, the only reason why you feel the violence that is intrinsic to a left-wing perspective, and fail to perceive the one that is in a right-wing perspective, is the fact that the first would require a rupture with the values you are used to see being upheld. That’s why the idea of Bill Gates being forced to take in poor people in his mansion shocks you so much more than a starving beggar, drooling outside the window of a 7-eleven, forced to passively do nothing and conform with his hunger as he sees plenty of food at public display.

    Yes, that is how our world works, but it does not mean that it “have” to be that way. This view isn’t the only one possible, but just the one that better conforms to our economic model. And while I don’t deny the necessity of respecting the rules of economy (hence things like private property being defended), I’d like to point out that our respect for the gravity didn’t prevent us from creating the parachute.

    Economy can be cruel, but there are those among us humans who are not, and feel the need to help diminishing the endemic suffering derived from our social organization. Hence those things that you label as evil being actually the epitome of humanism, the symptom of an empathy for those who are less fortunate, and that may lack credit cards – oh the terrible sin – but are still human beings, whose suffering cannot be simply ignored.

    I’m sorry to say that, but systemic violence (governmental imposition over individuals) does exist in our society already, whether you notice it or not. So, I just say we should use a little bit of it for purposes that are humanistic, not economical.

    Guaranteeing that your money stays in your pocket isn’t the only thing our society exists for.

    Regards :).
     
  5. lord_byron_nz

    lord_byron_nz Gimme some money

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2002
    Messages:
    387
    Location:
    Aotearoa
    I condone violence for the sake of violence but as a leftie, see revolution as the only way forward. Currently we live in a system where the minority control the majority and, therefore, society. This leads to structural violence: people starving while others sail superyachts, people homless while others have more than one mansion.

    To my mind, this is much more violent than Revolution as it is permanent and stagnat. A revolution offers an oppurtunity for change and progress, things impossible in a stagnat society.
     
  6. FredLC

    FredLC A Lawyer as You Can See! Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2002
    Messages:
    5,389
    Location:
    Vitória, ES, Brazil
    True, but I don't see actual "revolution", in the common sense of the word, working. Rushed social changes generally crumble due to the mostrous complexity of society that makes it next to impossible to implement instantaneous changes. I do thing that an easy change, developed by the cumulations of small alterations in our social body, would work much better (dialetical process).

    Regards :).
     
  7. Akka

    Akka Moody old mage.

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2001
    Messages:
    13,327
    Location:
    Facing my computer.
    Sad to see someone who can't even grasp the concept of altruism.

    But why bothering asking, why you obviously has already set your mind on this point and you just want to force your randist point of view as being the only good one ?
     
  8. bobgote

    bobgote Trousers

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2002
    Messages:
    4,786
    Location:
    Melbourne, VIC
    one sentence?

    you're an odd fellow, in that not a year ago, you called yourself a socialist. Is it so difficult to be able to recall what you were thinking back then?

    and as far as i've seen, i couldn't say that any leftist or socialist countries i've seen are particularly violent.

    maybe a couple of examples of these nations turning to socialism violently is in order?
     
  9. cgannon64

    cgannon64 BOB DYLAN'S ROCKIN OUT!

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2002
    Messages:
    19,213
    Location:
    Hipster-Authorland, Brooklyn (Hell)
    Do I really have to justify altruism?
     
  10. amadeus

    amadeus Serenity now!

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2001
    Messages:
    34,816
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Osaka (大阪)
    How is socialism altruistic? You're taking something that doesn't belong to you.
     
  11. cgannon64

    cgannon64 BOB DYLAN'S ROCKIN OUT!

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2002
    Messages:
    19,213
    Location:
    Hipster-Authorland, Brooklyn (Hell)
    I never said it was.

    But in the first post he said to justify altruism...

    ...which to me is a ridiculous question.
     
  12. Pirate

    Pirate Emperor

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2003
    Messages:
    1,445
    Location:
    Washington, DC
    The point of socialism is that there are some things that aren't yours to "own" in the first place.
     
  13. thestonesfan

    thestonesfan A Client of Ron Kuby

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2002
    Messages:
    7,549
    Location:
    Iowa
    Violence can be justified - but only in answer to violence. If you hit me, I'm justified in hitting you back.

    I think what newfangle means is the initiation of violence, which is impossible to justify. Police, obviously, should never initiate violence, but no one in their right mind would say the police should never use violence.

    Why have we ALWAYS had collective societies? Simple - it's easier to take something than to work for it. That's the underlying, unadmitted ethos of socialism, communism, fascism, feudalism - pretty much any "ism" you can think of. People like to hear how life is going to be made easier for them, so it's not surprising that these systems just don't go away. People also don't like bearing the blame of their misfortune, and those that appear to have less misfortune always look like good targets for said blame. So, rich people are generally disliked, regardless of how much they contribute to society. People who give without taking will always be hated by those that take without giving - people whose short-sightedness limits them from seeing the true workings of society.

    You can't have your cake and eat it, too. So obvious, yet so ignored.

    I also have a question. If socialism is the morally superior way, why am I forced to pay taxes? Shouldn't I just know that it is right? Why do I not feel good about it, when I do feel good about helping a hobbled old man with a walker take his trash out?

    I know why. One instance is help willingly given and appreciated, one is simple theft.
     
  14. thestonesfan

    thestonesfan A Client of Ron Kuby

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2002
    Messages:
    7,549
    Location:
    Iowa
    Except for other people's money.

    Oh, I mean, as long as you need it.
     
  15. amadeus

    amadeus Serenity now!

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2001
    Messages:
    34,816
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Osaka (大阪)
    For the record, cgannon, I was not responding to your post, but the thread in general.
     
  16. Free Enterprise

    Free Enterprise The return stroke.

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2002
    Messages:
    1,608
    Location:
    S.C., 1 of the 50, U.S.A.
    Altruism is a very good thing.

    Altruism is very different from communism or socialism. A communist generally wants you for the government. A socialist wants most of your money for the government's expenditures.
     
  17. WillJ

    WillJ Coolness Connoisseur

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2002
    Messages:
    9,471
    Location:
    USA
    @rmsharpe: Socialism is (or can be) altruistic because the whole point in it is to make sure everyone has the necessities of life, out of a concern for your fellow human being.
    So to you altruism is a postulate? I wouldn't say so.

    Just why is it important to care for others? It's of course true that altruism is (partly) what makes many societies run, and without it we'd all possibly be dead right now, but caring for others out of concern for yourself isn't altruism. Maybe altruism helps you into heaven (or something similar), or God wants us to be altruistic or else he'll punish us, and etc., but again, altruism (as I understand it) is a true concern for the well being of others beyond what is indirectly best for you. Which is quite illogical when you think about it, and isn't really justifiable. Yet we all take it for granted, I suppose because of us being naturally selected to care for others (since it's necessary for populations to function). Or maybe it's our inner spirit telling us what's right, I don't know.
     
  18. Archer 007

    Archer 007 Rebirth

    Joined:
    May 14, 2002
    Messages:
    10,687
    Location:
    The Empire State of the South


    25 to 45 percent is most :rolleyes: I must have really sucked at math.
     
  19. luiz

    luiz Trendy Revolutionary

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2001
    Messages:
    20,544
    Well archer, 25-45% of tax are really moderate for a socialist. In some social-democracys taxes go up to 60%, and in a true socialist country it would have to go up to 70-80%.
     
  20. FredLC

    FredLC A Lawyer as You Can See! Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2002
    Messages:
    5,389
    Location:
    Vitória, ES, Brazil
    Percentages alone are worthless. Analysis of taxes requires both the tax percentage and the base for calculation, otherwise you cannot really evaluate if the tax is harsh.

    For a crude example, taxiing a company in 20% can be hard, if we chose as base the income… or light, if we chose as base the profit.

    Regards :).
     

Share This Page