[PUG] Why Not Socialism According to InvisibleJim

InvisibleJim

InvisibleJim

Banned
MBTI
INTJ
Enneagram
5w6
Why not socialism?
  • Both libertarianism, decentralism and conservatism espouse personal responsibility
  • By contrast socialism, centralism and progressivism espouse the value of the state to remove personal responsibility
Therefore if you wish to live in a world where a jury can get together and find someone not guilty because 'they can blame everyone else in the jury' such as in another active thread here you can be a socialist.

If you wish to have the responsibility to raise your children and to expect certain standards of achievement and behaviour, don't be socialist, it's totally contradictory to both state you care about raising your children and then to give that care away to the nanny state.

If you believe that people should work towards the community because an individual needs to be able to provide for themselves before they can provide for others in excess then don't be socialist. If you think we should restrict individual acheivement out of the politics of envy then be socialist. You never find libertarians like myself playing the class/wealth/title card because we take our responsibilities for ourselves seriously and we give equal respect to those we interact with.

Which brings me conveniently onto another point:
  • Socialism is not only 'the good stuff'. Socialism is responsible for atrocities and genocide.
Lets have a look at the three biggest 'socialist' experiments and just how we can rationalise and empathise our way towards 'it's what the people want'.
  • In a token reductio ad hitlerum in the OP (note PUG) - National Socialism, or it's more popular name - Facism.
A mode of government where we draw an arbitrary boundary around a national identity and then use that to take from others by force what we want, when we want and so what. Hello Mr. Genocide.
  • Our friend, Intercommern, Communism, the USSR and it's Gulag.
Killed more people in prison camps than anyone else. It's a very slipperly slope from state control of the economy, education to attempting to control all thought of individuals most often by killing anyone who dissents against ' the people'.
  • And when it comes to economics we have our friend, the Great Leap Forward (or as any sane person calls it, the Great Leap Back) in China.
Chairman Meow in all of his wisdom set a 'planned' economy in 1956. Resulting in between 10-30 millions of deaths which dramatically halted progress in China. As is typical of socialism those who dared to do otherwise were seditious and experienced coercion, terror, and systematic violence.

So therefore, in my view, if you really believe in socialism, like, really really believe, you really haven't learnt any lessons about what happens when we marginalise personal responsibility and change the mechanisms of the state to remove freedom of thought or you actively support state demanded individual responsibility which supports the notion of genocide. There are natural limitations to all philosophies, however to declare 'we just haven't done it properly' is facetious.

I suggest you take the idealism you think works in practice and consider the words of a pragmatic communist who understood there have to limitations on this idealism -

Deng Xiaoping said:
I don't care if it's a white cat or a black cat. It's a good cat as long as it catches mice"
Click to expand...
 
I was off the grid and thus my response is later than usual.

acd said:
Ah, rhetoric.
Click to expand...
 Everyone is free to answer, especially to rhetorical questions.

Animekitty said:
what does liberalism espouse
I thought it was the dichotomous of conservatism
Click to expand...

Liberalism is about providing ultimate freedom for individual action and thought. It is anti-State determinist.
Conservatism is merely 'maintaining the status quo' thus it is also anti-State determinist unless historically State determinism has been the status quo and thus it will defend it.

You can never draw two straight lines between political philosophies, they are more like a prism in their various aspects.

Both are more anarchistic than you might think.
 
  • Like
Reactions: acd
bickelz said:
What about the European form of "socialism" that is more democratic?
Click to expand...

And what makes you think the original forms were not democratic?
 
bickelz said:
Did they hold elections every few years ago? Was there a parliament or congress active in and engaging the people/government?
Click to expand...

You seem to assume a system established and perpetuated by the majority is not democratic simply due to an absence of open elections. Infact if the majority are happy with the status quo then it us entirely democratic, after all, the politicians are merely giving the majority of people what they want.

Democracy is the right of 51% of the people to disenfranchise the other 49%.
 
InvisibleJim said:
You seem to assume a system established and perpetuated by the majority is not democratic simply due to an absence of open elections. Infact if the majority are happy with the status quo then it us entirely democratic, after all, the politicians are merely giving the majority of people what they want.

Democracy is the right of 51% of the people to disenfranchise the other 49%.
Click to expand...

Your using the very pure definition of democracy which isn't something that works either not to mention citizens need to be active in government decisions, not just happy with them in order for it to be democracy.

I'm talking more about pluralist democracy where minorities are looked out for and where a simple majority doesn't always win.
 
bickelz said:
Your using the very pure definition of democracy which isn't something that works either not to mention citizens need to be active in government decisions, not just happy with them in order for it to be democracy.

I'm talking more about pluralist democracy where minorities are looked out for and where a simple majority doesn't always win.
Click to expand...

Pluralism =/= democracy just as conservatism and liberalism are not dichotomous. Pluralism = pluralism.
 
bickelz said:
Pluralist Democracy is a big part of American democracy.
Click to expand...

Pluralism and democracy are the cornerstones of western politics but they are not the same thing.
 
InvisibleJim said:
Pluralism and democracy are the cornerstones of western politics but they are not the same thing.
Click to expand...

Really? Enlighten me further.

One theory can influence another. True, they are two separate theories of government but can be interactive in one government. The United States is a republic (the democracy part) and has a billion lobbyists (the pluralist part).

Would it be a terrible thing to mix some socialism in with this?

It's more like mixing the perfect martini than having a straight shot of Jack.
 
bickelz said:
Really? Enlighten me further.

One theory can influence another. True, they are two separate theories of government but can be interactive in one government. The United States is a republic (the democracy part) and has a billion lobbyists (the pluralist part).

Would it be a terrible thing to mix some socialism in with this?

It's more like mixing the perfect martini than having a straight shot of Jack.
Click to expand...

My brain hurts. Stop it! You can also have a non-republic democracy! e.g constitutional monarchy!

It's really not that hard. In effect, yes, you can mix and match but when you adopt the principles it will cloud the pool. aka. as a libertarian and a somewhat anarchistic, decentralistic and economically pragmatic minded individual I don't buy socialism because it is in opposition in principle to those ideas in my view.
 
InvisibleJim said:
My brain hurts. Stop it! You can also have a non-republic democracy! e.g constitutional monarchy!
Click to expand...

Wow, I've just realized you should have taught my sophomore civics class instead of Mr Shaw because you're taking me to school right now.

I know there are many different types of democracy and very different definitions of it. That's why i was putting forth the idea, in juxtaposition to your OP, that a government that borrows ideas from socialism and uses them isn't such a bad thing. I do think that pure socialism doesn't work but neither would a pure democracy because it relies not only upon people having perfect information but also them seeking it out and obtaining it. In that definition of democracy, each vote is equal in the numerical value as well as how informed of a vote it is.
 
One thing that really irritates me and that I find rather stupid is the conflation of any government funded program with socialism. An effective, smart nation ethically uses all the tools necessary to advance its citizens' welfare. A nation that limits itself based on ideology is doomed to rigid sclerosis and soon to be surpassed by more flexible, open minded, pragmatic competitors. Does this sound a little like the US today, with its closed minded, simpleton, tea bagger morons and radical politicians who believe that civility and compromise are evil?
 
Thanks [MENTION=3545]bickelz[/MENTION]

I believe that before a government spends money on something it should prove 1 thing.

1) The money is better spent on this than left in the economy

I believe that governments should only tax for one reason and on one ethical way.

1) Money should only be raised by taxing externalities
2) Money should be taxed equally at a flat rate on point (1)

Once these criteria are met we see the correct taxes being in place.

Road tax -> cars are noisy and disadvantage pedestrians.
Centralised health system -> efficiency savings by centralisation to the optimum level for all of society.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top