Is it possible to have socialism without coercion by an authoritarian government? - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Political issues and parties in the USA and Canada.

Moderator: PoFo North America Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#15049295
Consider Plumbers.

Should a plumber who gets out of bed in the morning and works hard and diligently all day to repair peoples plumbing get a greater reward than one who doesn't bother? If you are half way sane and answerer yes to this question then you have accepted the principle of inequality. Once you accept this you have individual wealth accumulation. The Commie is a lying, parasitic hypocrite. Commies are comfortable with extreme level of inequality, but they will only admit this when they have taken power.

Rejecting Communist cretinism, does not however mean you have to accept Libertarian cretinism. The idea of absolute individual rights or absolute property is even more absurd than Marxism. Pathological individualism (just another name for the mental illness known as Libertarianism) is even more philosophically unsound than pathological collectivism.
#15049297
Julian658 wrote:My socialist friends want socialism.

I am very sympathetic to socialism, but I have always been concerned with coercion by the state. What if a group of people want to be capitalists in a socialist nation? If anyone has a method to implement socialism without coercion I am all ears.


The answer is a hybrid economy. All vital services should be free to the point of use via taxation to prevent the American Health shitfest we all see and any other anomalies/contradictions where profit outweights worth due to demand via necessity. And that can only be achieved if those services are nationalised. Enterprise should remain in the free market to prevent stagnation in progress and allow the invisible hand to dictate need and demand where a nation will otherwise fail.
#15049298
Rich wrote:Consider Plumbers.

Should a plumber who gets out of bed in the morning and works hard and diligently all day to repair peoples plumbing get a greater reward than one who doesn't bother? If you are half way sane and answerer yes to this question then you have accepted the principle of inequality.


There is no such thing as equality, I agree. Humans align themselves along a scale of competence and talent. A few are destined to the top, most are average and about 10% are destined to the gutter. NOTHING can change this.


Once you accept this you have individual wealth accumulation. The Commie is a lying, parasitic hypocrite. Commies are comfortable with extreme level of inequality, but they will only admit this when they have taken power.


I will pretend to be a commie. We never had real communism. Does that work?

Rejecting Communist cretinism, does not however mean you have to accept Libertarian cretinism. The idea of absolute individual rights or absolute property is even more absurd than Marxism. Pathological individualism (just another name for the mental illness known as Libertarianism) is even more philosophically unsound than pathological collectivism.


Obviously, not a fan of Ayn Rand! :lol: :lol:

I believe she says once society decides it is your duty to care of the poor you have been given a mortgage on your life that you can never pay in full.
#15049299
B0ycey wrote:The answer is a hybrid economy. All vital services should be free to the point of use via taxation to prevent the American Health shitfest we all see and any other anomalies/contradictions where profit outweights worth due to demand via necessity. And that can only be achieved if those services are nationalised. Enterprise should remain in the free market to prevent stagnation in progress and allow the invisible hand to dictate need and demand where a nation will otherwise fail.


Mixed economies also exert coercion. If you do not pay your taxes you go to jail. How is that for coercion?

The question is: Why are the homeless increasing in places like Seattle, LA, and San Francisco? These cities have overtly generous benefits to the poor?
#15049305
Julian658 wrote:Mixed economies also exert coercion. If you do not pay your taxes you go to jail. How is that for coercion?

The question is: Why are the homeless increasing in places like Seattle, LA, and San Francisco? These cities have overtly generous benefits to the poor?


All governments will exert coercion via the social contract. To answer that question you should be asking for anarchy (a political solution) and not more capitalism (an economic policy).

Although I will point our your examples are in the US who are without doubt the most unsocialist country in the western world - even in blue states. If housing was provided by the state without a cost to the public except via taxation you would have no homelessness as homes would be provided. Under capitalism if you do not earn the capital to pay rent you can be evicted. So under a hybrid economy that has a social housing project you are wrong.
#15049308
The problems with following the mentality of capitalism and its underlying issues that emphasize the needs of the rich to the misery of the vast majority. Summed up by a very successful 1% capitalist guy:



How to answer those problems: Richard Wolff discusses how the socialists cope and why we are the next level of human progress.

The myths about authoritarianism is crap, the more democracy and power workers have and control over their own lives and workplace? The better it is for their own nations, their own neighborhoods and their own families and communities:

It lasts about 8 minutes. That is the solution to this capitalist bullshit mess.

Read it and say socialism is not the answer? You would be a crazy individualistic selfish freak and part of the problem with human capitalist greed.



B0ycey the invisible hand is there stealing your wealth. That is what it does. Lol. The solution is right in front of our faces.
#15049311
B0ycey wrote:All governments will exert coercion via the social contract. To answer that question you should be asking for anarchy (a political solution) and not more capitalism (an economic policy).


Hobbes suggested and I agree. Government is a necessary evil since it affords some protection from the aggression of other fellow citizens. However, over time government exerts massive control on the citizens. That is a major dilemma. From my perspective capitalism applies less coercion than socialism.


Although I will point our your examples are in the US who are without doubt the most unsocialist country in the western world - even in blue states. If housing was provided by the state without a cost to the public except via taxation you would have no homelessness as homes would be provided. Under capitalism if you do not earn the capital to pay rent you can be evicted. So under a hybrid economy that has a social housing project you are wrong.


America was founded by Englishmen that were the product of the enlightenment. At the onset it was all about individuality and every man for himself.

America's homeless are mostly nihilistic mentally ill drug addicts. If you give them a home they would also need a maid to clean, a cook, and a maintenance person. OTOH, the American homeless that are sound of mind are easily helped by the system.

Have you ever seen free public housing in America? There is such a thing!
#15049316
Hobbes suggested and I agree. Government is a necessary evil since it affords some protection from the aggression of other fellow citizens. However, over time government exerts massive control on the citizens. That is a major dilemma. From my perspective capitalism applies less coercion than socialism.


Coercion is absolutely necessary for any government to exist among people at all. But Socialism is more truly democratic than government in Capitalist society, so the coercion is ''distributed'' if you will.



America was founded by Englishmen that were the product of the enlightenment. At the onset it was all about individuality and every man for himself.


Agreed, and that is a problem.

America's homeless are mostly nihilistic mentally ill drug addicts. If you give them a home they would also need a maid to clean, a cook, and a maintenance person. OTOH, the American homeless that are sound of mind are easily helped by the system.


The missing ingredient that makes full housing possible in Socialism is also full employment. If the formerly homeless could not find work, work would be found for them. Nobody gets a free ride.
Have you ever seen free public housing in America? There is such a thing!


Yes, I'm all too aware of that nonsense, nonsense because few of those people are employed, or even employable. They are what Karl Marx would have called the ''Lumpenproletariat'', and they are purely a product of Capitalist society.
#15049317
Julian658 wrote:

America was founded by Englishmen that were the product of the enlightenment. At the onset it was all about individuality and every man for himself.





You seem to be saying the Founding Fathers were libertarian. That is inaccurate.

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence,[note 1] promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

That is pretty much the opposite of "every man for himself".
#15049319
late wrote:We badly need better public education.

You seem to be saying the Founding Fathers were libertarian. That is inaccurate.

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence,[note 1] promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

That is pretty much the opposite of "every man for himself".

Oh, sure, but you are taking this literally. America was never socialist. There is a reason why Americans feel they have a right to carry weapons. The Wild West was about every man for himself.

Individualism was a prominent theme of the Enlightenment. The idea that man is endowed with certain liberties or rights granted by God and/or nature. The rights they described did not cost any money. Within this framework health care or free housing are not individual rights.
#15049321
Julian658 wrote:
Oh, sure, but you are taking this literally. America was never socialist. There is a reason why Americans feel they have a right to carry weapons. The Wild West was about every man for himself.

Individualism was a prominent theme of the Enlightenment. The idea that man is endowed with certain liberties or rights granted by God and/or nature. The rights they described did not cost any money. Within this framework health care or free housing are not individual rights.



Socialism didn't exist 200 years ago. You keep putting 20th century beliefs into the mouths of 18th century people. That is quire simply wrong.

The Wild West is our national mythology.
#15049322
Julian658 wrote:Hobbes suggested and I agree. Government is a necessary evil since it affords some protection from the aggression of other fellow citizens. However, over time government exerts massive control on the citizens. That is a major dilemma. From my perspective capitalism applies less coercion than socialism.


I am not against government. However I am not the one moaning about coercion. Nonetheless from my perspective capitalism applies more coercion than socialism. Why? Because the whole system is based on debt. I doubt anyone wants to work yet everyone is forced to due to the system. If that isn't coercion I don't know what is.

America's homeless are mostly nihilistic mentally ill drug addicts. If you give them a home they would also need a maid to clean, a cook, and a maintenance person. OTOH, the American homeless that are sound of mind are easily helped by the system.


I'm sure there is more to homelessness than drugs. One way I can think of on the top of my head to become homeless is debt and that is a Capitalism issue. Although I only suggest that everyone is provided a home. If anyone decides to not look after it when given to them then the state shouldn't wipe their arse for them as well.
#15049324
Tainari88 wrote:B0ycey the invisible hand is there stealing your wealth. That is what it does. Lol. The solution is right in front of our faces.


The invisible hand is merely a process. It explains why things progress and how supply is determined by demand. Ultimately it was the lack of freedom in enterprise that stagnated the SU and was why before it fell Gorbachev tried to implement Perestroika. I am not against Socialism as you know. However I don't pretend it doesn't have fundamental flaws and stagnation is one of them.
#15049328
Julian658 wrote:Hobbes suggested and I agree. Government is a necessary evil since it affords some protection from the aggression of other fellow citizens. However, over time government exerts massive control on the citizens. That is a major dilemma. From my perspective capitalism applies less coercion than socialism.


You are confusing economic policy with type of government. It is possible to have a capitalist authoritarian system, just as it is possible to have a democratic socialist system.

America was founded by Englishmen that were the product of the enlightenment. At the onset it was all about individuality and every man for himself.


Not really, no.

Early settlers depended heavily on good relations with indigenous people in order to survive, and often practiced communal methods of feeding everyone.
#15049361
Tainari88 wrote:The problems with following the mentality of capitalism and its underlying issues that emphasize the needs of the rich to the misery of the vast majority. Summed up by a very successful 1% capitalist guy:



How to answer those problems: Richard Wolff discusses how the socialists cope and why we are the next level of human progress.

The myths about authoritarianism is crap, the more democracy and power workers have and control over their own lives and workplace? The better it is for their own nations, their own neighborhoods and their own families and communities:

It lasts about 8 minutes. That is the solution to this capitalist bullshit mess.

Read it and say socialism is not the answer? You would be a crazy individualistic selfish freak and part of the problem with human capitalist greed.



B0ycey the invisible hand is there stealing your wealth. That is what it does. Lol. The solution is right in front of our faces.


I am 200% for workers owning the business. My son in law and three college mates own and founded a business. This happens every day in capitalist nations. There is no law in America that prevents people to pool resources together and open a business where everybody is part owner. I don't know anyone that would oppose this.

Note how the workers are happier and more productive when there are part owners. This is the wonder of capitalism. The question is: Do this workers offer ownership to anyone that walks in the door?
#15049362
B0ycey wrote:I am not against government. However I am not the one moaning about coercion. Nonetheless from my perspective capitalism applies more coercion than socialism. Why? Because the whole system is based on debt. I doubt anyone wants to work yet everyone is forced to due to the system. If that isn't coercion I don't know what is.


Sure, there is no free lunch. The nature of the beast is that one must swim to keep the head about water and avoid drowning. What is the alternative? Have someone else do this for you?

I'm sure there is more to homelessness than drugs. One way I can think of on the top of my head to become homeless is debt and that is a Capitalism issue. Although I only suggest that everyone is provided a home. If anyone decides to not look after it when given to them then the state shouldn't wipe their arse for them as well.

I say give cheap homes to anyone that is willing to work. I agree!
Macron: Nato is brain-dead

Yes, Europe needs it's own defence architecture b[…]

Negating your subject with an identical object […]

Oh don't under-estimate the MSM. They define the […]

Just like Jim Crow

"This impeachment trial is becoming like a Ji[…]