1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Discuss politics - join our community by registering for free here! HOP - the political discussion forum

Socialism is Evil

Discussion in 'Historical Events & Figures' started by GenSeneca, Oct 9, 2008.

  1. GenSeneca

    GenSeneca Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2008
    Messages:
    6,245
    Likes Received:
    501
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    ={CaLiCo}= HQ
    When I say Socialism is Evil.... I'm not attempting to demonize an opposing viewpoint - through the use of Hyperbole - in order to more easily dismiss the philosophy and teachings... I mean it as an empirical truth.

    Socialism is Evil: The Empirical Evidence

    Socialism seeks to redefine Reason to suit its goals. Logic is the process by which man Reasons for himself, to determine Reality. Logic is rejected and substituted with assertions of knowledge.

    Reality is not compatible with Socialism, therefore, Logic and Reason must be tweaked to change ones perception of reality. How many times have you heard a politician say, "Perception is Reality"?

    Reality, is Reality. Reality is Truth. Perception is based on Reality - Socialism seeks to reverse causality.

    Natural Science, that of Reality, will have to be absorbed by the "Science of Man" in hopes of changing Reality by altering the Perception of it.

    Socialism tells you that its your nature, by instinct, to live for the survival of others and not for your own survival, an attempt to negate reality and reverse Reality.

    According to Socialism, its only by production that your life garners value.

    I cannot stress enough, the importance of the above quote... Socialism teaches life without production has no value. While Socialists will adamantly deny this truth by pointing to their undying support for "Human Rights", this is a smokescreen by which Socialism seeks to abrogate private property rights. Property is not just Land...

    Property is anything you possess of value to others and the only value Socialism places on you, is based on your ability to contribute Value to the Collective. Whether its your intelligence, labor or physical holdings, all is deemed property of the Collective and subject to their whims.

    Did you catch that list of Targets for Corruption? He uses the word "precision" when talking about the need to inject the Socialist "Truth" (Perception of Reality) into the fields that will allow for a Socialist revolution:

    Scientists and Laboratories (Gore didn't need to be a scientist to win a Nobel),
    Colleges and Universities (Take your pick...),
    Lawyers and Lawfirms (ACLU),
    Politicians (Think of how many politicians went through those universities to become lawyers and went on to be politicians),
    Religious Leaders and Institutions (Louis Farrakhan and Black Liberation Theology),
    Artists (HollyWood),
    Philosophic (MSM).

    Here Marx is saying that all ideologies and forms of mans consciousness are not real, and must be altered to conform with the Socialist perception of Reality.

    Basically like saying: I reject your reality and substitute my own.

    Through class struggle, pitting the lower 4/5ths of society against the top 1/5th, Socialists have talked 4/5ths of society to reject the rights to their own property in order to acquire the property of the top 1/5th. Little by little our individual right to property is eroded until it is gone.

    Contrary to popular opinion... Rich people, Politicians in particular, have something very special to gain from supporting Socialism in America - A chance for them, and their families, to be permanently cemented into the Ruling Class of society.

    This superior ruling class decides what the Common Good is for everyone else. This class is the only class where individuals are held with inherent value to the Collective.

    Socialism teaches that Private Property is slavery, and agitates for the lower 4/5ths of society to dissolve Private Property rights with the promise of obtaining property from the top 5th... Only to find, once having done so, that the top 1% is now the ruling class and above sacrifice for the Collective they rule.

    By trying to sacrifice the rights of the top 5th for the Common Good, the bottom 4/5ths sacrifice themselves to slavery at the hands of the superior ruling class, who's rights they sought to destroy. Now slaves to the Common Good - defined for them by their rulers - individuals have no rights and no value beyond what their superiors dictate.

    Socialism is Evil.
     
  2. GenSeneca

    GenSeneca Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2008
    Messages:
    6,245
    Likes Received:
    501
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    ={CaLiCo}= HQ
    Socialism is ab economic theory. It is not Communism. It has nothing to do with Marx. There are Socialist or labor parties in almost every democracy.

    You definition is absurd. Production is every thing a man does.Its main aqim is greater equality. So that by progressive taxation and social services the gap between the rich and poor be narrowed. It does call for regulation and competition for private enterprises to keep them honest.

    It does not abolish Private Enterprise . Democratic Socialism is comparable with Democracy.Leaders are elected -- Aus22


    First off... Its very clear you didn't actually read anything I wrote... That or you're intentionally trying to misrepresent my statements in your reply. (Neither of which suprises me coming from a Socialist)

    Secondly, thats the most piss poor defense of Socialism I've ever heard.

    When an Individual uses force to relieve another Individual of his property, we call that THEFT.

    However, according to Socialists like yourself, when an Individual "democratically elects" a middle man (Socialist Politician) to use the force of Government to relieve another Individual of his property, so that it may be given to some other Individual - Its no longer called what it is, THEFT, its now called "Progressive Taxation" and defended as being Moral.

    Socialism is Immoral, Unethical and Evil. Just because its popular, doesn't make it right.

    I welcome others to come and defend their Socialist beliefs... Unfortunately, a Majority of Democrat are Socialists - yet they are either to afraid to admit it, or they haven't taken the introspective look necessary to come to terms with this reality.
     
  3. Agnapostate

    Agnapostate New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2008
    Messages:
    215
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    California
    What is this nonsense?
     
  4. Chip

    Chip New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2007
    Messages:
    420
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    It appears to be a form of religious worship of a method of socioeconomic system control (capitalism), this particular example being a castigation of its dualistic devil (socialism).
     
  5. Agnapostate

    Agnapostate New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2008
    Messages:
    215
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    California
    And this poster conflates socialism with Marxism, Marxism with communism, and communism with all forms of socialism. Does this individual know the accurate definition of any of these terms?
     
  6. GenSeneca

    GenSeneca Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2008
    Messages:
    6,245
    Likes Received:
    501
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    ={CaLiCo}= HQ
    Did you have something constructive to say, or are you just being dismissive?

    How many works have you read from the following people?
    • Karl Marx
    • Fredrick Engels
    • Paul Lafargue
    • Karl Kautsky
    • Daniel DeLeon
    • Clara Zetkin
    • Georgi Plekhanov
    • James Connolly
    • Rosa Luxemburg
    • Nikolai Bukharin
    • Vladimir Lenin
    • Leon Trotsky
    • Alexandra Kollontai
    • Antonio Gramsci
    • Georg Lukacs
    • Karl Korsch
    • M. N. Roy
    • Jose Carlos Mariategui
    • CLR James
    • Hal Draper
    • George Padmore
    • Paul Mattick
    • Adolf Hitler
    • Joseph Goebbels
    • Julius Streicher
    Have you bothered reading ANY of their works?

    If you would like to discuss any particular type of socialism, I'm very well read on each of the listed authors and more....
    Marx wrote about several types of Socialist theories...Among them the most famous are known as: Marxism, Communism, and the theory that Chip adheres to; Utopian Socialism.

    Its not a matter of "conflating" the theories. Socialist ideology is like a large tree and what I did was ignore the branches, leaves and trunk and gave the reader what is at the root of all socialist thought.... Intellectual depravity, rejection of reality, and a complete disdain for individuals and individual rights.
     
  7. Agnapostate

    Agnapostate New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2008
    Messages:
    215
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    California
    :rolleyes: The last three people on your list are Nazis. You define Keynesians as "socialists?" You also define Soviet officials as socialists, though the Soviet Union was a state capitalist regime. The rest of the people on your list are Marxists who clung to one form of authoritarianism or another. Luxemburg is one of the few respectable authors there.

    Try this:

    • Noam Chomsky
    • Mikhail Bakunin
    • Peter Kropotkin
    • Sam Dolgoff
    • Daniel Guerin
    • Emma Goldman
    • Murray Bookchin
    • Errico Malatesta
    • Flores Magon brothers
    • Pierre Joseph Proudhon

    Why don't we discuss libertarian socialism?

    You know nothing. Your "reading list" reveals that you have a passing familiarity with authoritarian "socialism," and know nothing whatsoever about libertarian socialism. The most profoundly anti-democratic and authoritarian system in place is capitalism.
     
  8. 9sublime

    9sublime Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2007
    Messages:
    2,620
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Location:
    Bristol
    How about George Orwell. One of the main points in his socialist ethos was to keep it a miles apart from the russian bastardization of it.
     
  9. Agnapostate

    Agnapostate New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2008
    Messages:
    215
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    California
    Exactly? Have you read his Homage to Catalonia?
     
  10. 9sublime

    9sublime Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2007
    Messages:
    2,620
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Location:
    Bristol
    No. Why, what of it?
     
  11. Agnapostate

    Agnapostate New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2008
    Messages:
    215
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    California
    Well, we know that he was a harsh opponent of Soviet "socialism." 1984's Oceania was supposed to be a combination of Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union, and Big Brother a combination of Hitler and Stalin. As the doctrine of Oceania is Ingsoc, (Newspeak for English socialism), Oceania is particularly intended to be a totalitarian state of the authoritarian "socialist" variety. Essentially all of the people that GenSeneca listed were Marxists, (particularly Marxist-Leninists), with authoritarian leanings, including several Soviet officials, as well as several National Socialists. Through this list, he intends to discredit socialism.

    But we know that Orwell cannot have felt similarly, as he was a democratic socialist. Therefore, I prepared a counter-list of libertarian socialists who support democracy. Orwell's Homage to Catalonia is an account of his service in the Spanish Civil War with the Workers Party of Marxist Unification, which, despite being a Marxist party, was explicitly anti-Stalinist and anti-authoritarian. Orwell's account is also a praise of the CNT-FAI and the Spanish anarchist collectives that practiced libertarian socialism during the Revolution.
     
  12. Mr. Carpenter

    Mr. Carpenter New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2008
    Messages:
    421
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    0
    OK, perhaps I'm a bit 'slow' here, being as how I dedicated a good chunk of my younger years to defeating the Soviet Union, but exactly how do you conclude that the Soviet Union was a "state capitalist regime" when they were the closest thing to a true Socialist government this side of Communist China?

    Oh, and one other question, how is your "libertarian socialism" in any way any better than any other form of "socialism" (considering that I find all of them to be antithetical to our Constitutional Republic)? Frankly, from what I've read, in many aspects it's far worse than even the Soviet model, and stands even less of a chance of working.
     
  13. Agnapostate

    Agnapostate New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2008
    Messages:
    215
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    California
    Socialism is defined as the public or collective ownership of the means of production. In the Soviet Union, the means of production were not controlled by the public, but but by the Soviet upper class, which consisted of members of the Bolshevik Party and the Politburo. As any legitimate form of public control requires democratic management, particularly the form of direct democratic management espoused by Murray Bookchin in his theory of libertarian municipalism, the anti-democratic and totalitarian arrangement in the Soviet Union was not a legitimate form of socialism. Any legitimate socialist or communist would have condemned the Soviet Union, as the anarcho-communist Peter Kropotkin did. Consider his letter to Lenin, written in December of 1920:

    As well as his later condemnation:

    Whatever the Soviet Union's pretensions might have been, they did not represent socialism or communism in any legitimate way. The words of Mikhail Bakunin are illustrative here.
    This might provide a more elaborate analysis of this: Noam Chomsky-The Soviet Union Versus Socialism

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism

    I must say that I profoundly disagree with that claim. Libertarian socialism emphasizes freedom and voluntary association rather than the brutal forced collectivization that was a facet of authoritarian "socialism." Libertarian socialism, as well as the sub-category of anarchism, emphasize liberty and freedom from unjustified forms of hierarchical authority, which include the state and capitalism. The opposition to capitalism is particularly critical, especially considering that capitalistic wage labor acts as a private form of state tyranny. Capitalists argue that hierarchy in the workplace is not tyranny because the workers have "consented" to work for an employer. The most frequently used analogy used to counter this involves robbery. Suppose that a man were to tackle you and forcibly rip your valuables out of your pockets. We would say that this man had robbed you. Now, suppose a man were to point a gun at you and tell you to hand over your valuables. We would similarly call this a robbery, though you had technically "consented" to hand them over. We would call this an illegitimate form of consent because you had no viable alternative; the only other option was to get shot, in which case you would undergo suffering and would possibly die. The first analogy representing direct brutality is intended to represent openly aggressive statism that can directly harm citizens. The second analogy representing coerced robbery is intended to represent capitalism, in which your only options are to subject yourself and your labor to an employer who will profit from your labor more than you will, or to suffer by not doing this and possibly starve to death.

    It is in this manner that libertarian socialism represents freedom and liberty, and is opposed to the brutal coercion that is a facet of capitalism and authoritarian "socialism." Bakunin's words are again applicable here:
    As for the next claim that libertarian socialism is an unworkable doctrine, I disagree with that claim also, as numerous libertarian socialist societies have existed, most notably the Spanish anarchist collectives that existed during the Spanish Civil War. Sam Dolgoff estimates that eight to ten million people were directly or indirectly affected by the collectives.
     
  14. GenSeneca

    GenSeneca Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2008
    Messages:
    6,245
    Likes Received:
    501
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    ={CaLiCo}= HQ
    Because the Nazi's were National Socialists... The Soviet Union pushed International Socialism, that's what caused the two Socialist nations to be at odds with each other.

    Hitler explained the difference between the ideologies and anyone who's familiar with his speeches or literary works know this. His justification was that a German worker had more in common with a German banker than a worker of the same industry on the other side of the globe or even just beyond the border of Germany. After all, Germans shared a National history, National language etc. and interacted with each other on a personal basis daily.

    The German worker's son attended school with the German bankers son, their families ate at the same restaurants, went to the same movie theaters and, in general, interacted with one another on a regular basis while sharing a common history and Germanic bloodline. Often the banker was friends with, or even related to, the worker, thus having far more in common with each other than their counterparts, bankers or workers, from other countries.

    This statement appears to be an attempt at a straw man. What I said was: All Socialist countries ascribe to the Keynesian economic theory. Keynesian theory lends itself to controlled economies and stands in opposition to free markets and laissez-faire Capitalism.

    Again with the strawmen... I made no such "definition" or claim. Socialism, like any other economic or political system, has branched off to many different forms but share some basic tenets.
    That is nothing more than a relabeling of State Socialism and a Planned Economy. Often this new label is used to either make socialism sound more appealing or to denigrate capitalism by equating it with Socialist policy.

    All Socialism is Authoritarian to one extent or another. Utopian Socialism can arguably be considered the least Authoritarian but it is nevertheless tyrannical, as all collectivist ideologies are.

    You add these names as if I've never heard of them and as though I'm totally unfamiliar with their works... Every name you listed proposes Anarchism and/or Socialism of some form or another. You can strike the Anarchists from the list, the bold names, unless you can show where proponents of Anarchism have relevance to a discussion about Socialism.

    Go for it.... Libertarian Socialism, just like all other forms of Socialism and Collectivism, calls for the infringement, or outright abolition, of private property rights. If you can make a legitimate case for a form of Socialism that doesn't infringe or abolish private property rights, be my guest.

    This is an Ad Hominem attack - A sign of a weak argument on your part.
    Utopian Socialism is not meant to be an authoritarian model, its just tyrannical, and I'm more than slightly familiar with it. Marx laid the foundation for all modern forms of Utopian Socialism and all socialism is nothing less than a tyranny of the majority (people with need) over the minority (people with ability).
    The above comment is packed with, and predicated on, fallacies in logic... Not to mention the fact that Capitalism is a purely Economic system whereas Socialism is both Economic and Political.

    First, its a red herring. The topic is Socialism, not Capitalism, and by attacking Capitalism, the poster hopes to change the subject to a defense of Capitalism... A challenge I will gladly oblige in order to point out the fallacies contained in his attack.

    Second, its a fallacy of assertion. There has been no supporting evidence provided to substantiate the claims and the claims are easily disproven by looking at truly authoritarian and anti-democratic systems.

    Third, Judgmental language fallacy. I am forced to break up the sentence to deal with the claims made:

    "The most profoundly anti-democratic and Authoritarian" system would be a system of rule which allows no input or dissent from those living under it: Totalitarianism, Absolute Monarchism and Authoritarian Dictatorships would be examples of the "most profoundly anti-democratic and authoritarian" systems possible.

    Claiming that Capitalism, as a purely economic system, can simultaneously be a totalitarian or authoritarian political system is without foundation. Capitalism is based on free markets, free trade and the "free" part means that its free of political regulations and mandates. Individuals are free to trade and do business with whomever they so choose without government interference. Any regulations and/or mandates placed upon Capitalism becomes a "mixed" economic principle, which perverts capitalist principles, and any totalitarian or authoritarian results cannot be blamed on Capitalism but are the fault of what it has been mixed with.

    Lastly, Agnapostate had earlier accused me of conflating the different types of Socialism but his last sentence appears to be conflating the Capitalist economic system with the Democratic and Republic systems of political governance here in the US and elsewhere.
    --------------

    I did not list those names to discredit socialism, I asked if you were familiar with the authors... You didn't answer that question but instead posted a different list of authors... an attempt to discredit my knowledge of socialism as though I wasn't familiar with the different types of socialism.

    Does it require an infringement or abolition of an individuals Private Property rights?
    Yes, it does call for the infringement or abolition of Private Property so that all means of production can be "owned" by the collective.

    From my OP:
    Your "libertarian socialism" is no different and is just as evil as all the others.
     
  15. 9sublime

    9sublime Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2007
    Messages:
    2,620
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Location:
    Bristol
    Thanks Agna, interesting stuff.
     
Loading...

Share This Page