Unhealthy debate? - socialism, communism, fascism

[maten149]

It strikes me as a little weird that words like
socialism, communism and fascism are used as swear-words, many
times without any actual thought regarding the contents and meaning
of these words - they are simply considered evil. One wonders how
much McCarthian mentality still remains.

I got a little critisism for using wikipedia as a reference when describing
different ideologies. So I thought I'd pitch in some info on these
ideologies from websters in order to make coming debates a little easier.

Communism (source: American heritage dictionary):
A system of government in which the state plans and controls the economy and a single, often authoritarian party holds power, claiming to make progress toward a higher social order in which all goods are equally shared by the people.

Socialism (source: American heritage dictionary):
Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.

Fascism (source: American heritage dictionary):
A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.

Now, as far as I'm concerned, some ideas from both socialism and
communism are quite good. Attempts to implement these systems have
failed. But ideas from these systems, such as a non-trivial part of commonwealth is implemented and thriving in several western democracies.
I find it difficult to see any good points in fascism.

/Mattias

[el comandante]

absolutely correct. Some people still seem to be stuck in the mcarthy era.

[Osborn F. Enready]

Some people, like myself, simply refuse to accept the concept of not owning ones own body, being forced to sacrifice our own individual intrests for the intrests of some abstract collective, and the inherant flaws with "socialism/communism" regarding the denial of individual liberty.

Now, if one is to have the debate centered around "which political system is most efficient using force as the means of enforcement", you could say socialism, communism may give capitalism, specifically laissez faire capitalism, a run for its money, since there would be no limitation on force as the operative tool for government, against the people.

However, if one is to have a debate centered around "which political system is most efficient using reason as the means of enforcement, with force kept to an ABSOLUTE MINIMUM", laissez faire capitalism coupled with a government limited to only enforcing individual rights as enumerated in the U.S. Bill of Rights, would clearly be the victor.

The difference between the two (or three) is the use of force as an operative tool for government, and the recognition or DENIAL of individual rights.

Laissez faire capitalism is ONLY a system of economics. In the United States, there was intended to be a seperation from economics and state, as there was a seperation from church and state. As you can see, time has eroded that seperation, due to a bi-partisan monopoly controlling the entire political system for the last 100+ years, and both having the same agenda. World government, and some of the keys to this type of merge would be the eradication of the concept of individual and national sovereignty.

The failures you are starting to see in the U.S. regarding economy and politics, are very similar to the failures you have seen regarding socialism and communism, and the reason is the similarity of the systems, and the resulting hypocrisy, therefore devaluing of the system of law. This has eroded the public trust, but before eradicating the concept of individual rights, and individual liberty, both social and economic.


You both seem to put forward that collective intrests outweigh individual intrests?

If this is the case, do you both admit that force is the key to conformity in this type of political structure as you ascribe to?

[el comandante]

I think you ask the wrong questions. You should ask yourself to you support a system in which success is by and large a product of inheritence. If you do capitalism is the ideology for you, if not socialism or communism is.

And the assertion that socialism depends on force is not true. Sure socialists have used force, but it isnt a necessity, and capitalists have used force too, ever heard of Pinochet ?

Social democrats dont depend on force, Hugo Chavez, Rafeal Correa and Evo Morales being a few examples. They rely upon the will of the people, nothing else.

[Osborn F. Enready]

el commandante said:
I think you ask the wrong questions.

I think you fail to answer the right questions.

el commandante said:
You should ask yourself to you support a system in which success is by and large a product of inheritence. If you do capitalism is the ideology for you, if not socialism or communism is.

Not true at all. Many have made themselves not only successful, but wealthy and happy by their own actions, while starting from poverty. Money is not happiness, but it can be included in the rational view of happiness as there is no doubt financial security is a piece of mind all in itself.

This security is not a right of an individual, but a goal of some individuals and as you said, a hereditary gift for some by parents who HAD properly planned to provide for their children, AKA having children RESPONSIBLY.

el commandante said:
And the assertion that socialism depends on force is not true.

Prove this.

el commandante said:
Sure socialists have used force, but it isnt a necessity, and capitalists have used force too, ever heard of Pinochet ?

Whoa..... I never said all capitalists were sound to the concept of both economic liberty equally to social liberty. In fact, I am arguing that they are NOT always that way, hence the NECESSITY of citizens to always maintain a guard on public liberty through skeptical eyes on government.

Pinochet?!? I don't know that I would call him a capitalist.

el commandante said:
Social democrats dont depend on force, Hugo Chavez, Rafeal Correa and Evo Morales being a few examples. They rely upon the will of the people, nothing else.

ROFLMAO!!!!! :madlaugh:

Hugo Chavez..... How did he just nationalize the oil in Venezuela?...... oh yes, force, thats right. How is he quelling cries of injustice?.... force, oh yes.... :madlaugh:

We could go on and on about those examples my friend.

[4Reaganomics]

No no no, Chavez was catapulted to power by the free will of the people

Gosh osborn don't you get it?

[el comandante]

Not true at all. Many have made themselves not only successful, but wealthy and happy by their own actions, while starting from poverty. Money is not happiness, but it can be included in the rational view of happiness as there is no doubt financial security is a piece of mind all in itself.

You may say money is not happiness, but it provides the basic necessities of life, health, food, shelter etc. I dont think the poor of free market Chile who have nothing would consider themselves to be happy.

This security is not a right of an individual, but a goal of some individuals and as you said, a hereditary gift for some by parents who HAD properly planned to provide for their children, AKA having children RESPONSIBLY.

Why should a child be punished at birth because of who their parents are ? What has that innocent chiuld ever done to deserve such fate ?


Prove this.

While you cant prove a negative, Chavez, Morales and Correa are good examples.
el commandante said:
Sure socialists have used force, but it isnt a necessity, and capitalists have used force too, ever heard of Pinochet ?

Pinochet?!? I don't know that I would call him a capitalist.


He presided over one of the most free market economies on the planet. Have you heard of the Chicago boys and their free market experiment on Chile ?

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-chichile.htm

This assesment will leave you in no doubt he was a capitalist.

Hugo Chavez..... How did he just nationalize the oil in Venezuela?...... oh yes, force, thats right. How is he quelling cries of injustice?.... force, oh yes.... :madlaugh:


The people nationalised their natural resources by compensating the multi nationals. If this is force then so is every other law done for the common good, like banning drink driving and drug dealing, competition laws, the list is endless.

[Wndrtch]

I think you ask the wrong questions. You should ask yourself to you support a system in which success is by and large a product of inheritence. If you do capitalism is the ideology for you, if not socialism or communism is.

What are you talking about?

Capitolism is not based on inheritence, it's based on individual hard work and determination. It' based on the individual having cart-blanche to do what he wants, strive for excellence, and earn as much as he can or wants. America only started 200 years ago, and started from nothing. How do you "inherit" what you don't have? Youhave to earn it first, then you can will it down.

And, if you don't make the inheritence go to work for you and generate more, you will run out. The fact is, most inherited money is spent out after the first two generation. If there was no new money being generated, the country would collapse, and ours doesn't.

And the assertion that socialism depends on force is not true. Sure socialists have used force, but it isnt a necessity, and capitalists have used force too, ever heard of Pinochet ?

It may not rely on force, but it does use subtle miss-information to keep the masses lulled and docile.

Social democrats dont depend on force, Hugo Chavez, Rafeal Correa and Evo Morales being a few examples. They rely upon the will of the people, nothing else.

You are kidding, right?

[Osborn F. Enready]

el commandante said:
You may say money is not happiness, but it provides the basic necessities of life, health, food, shelter etc. I dont think the poor of free market Chile who have nothing would consider themselves to be happy.

No, labor provides health, food, shelter, etc. Money, or more accurately today, FIAT currency provides a means to aquire labor that is not your own, or goods or services that are not your own.

Let me ask you this.... if you build your home that you dream of of your own hands, create your garden and stock your farm for food that you love, and put away enough to provide for your health by selling your extra produce and meat, what do you have to have money for??

All people have different values. I value a simple life with some exceptions, but I seek to avoid "society" as a whole. They have rendered they don't need me except to thieve from my labor. I have rendered I don't need them except for an occasional medical emergency.

People have an obligation to fulfill their own dreams, their own goals, their own pursuit of happiness, and to provide for those things from their own labor, or their natural collective. (family, friends, legal guardian, etc.)

In no way is it the onus of the state to ensure your health and welfare and happy state from cradle to grave, and to use government force to provide this is a criminal violation of individual rights with the operative tool to usurp those rights being force.

el commandante said:
Why should a child be punished at birth because of who their parents are ? What has that innocent chiuld ever done to deserve such fate ?

Because life, and nature are not fair. Children are a product of two adult, rights holding individuals. That child is their responsibility to raise and provide for until the child reaches majority age to be recognized as having full rights, as opposed to partial rights as a minor.

If you seek a King or a genie to grant you free life necessities(which doesn't exist since nothing is free), perhaps you should seek one out, and not punish the rest of society for your subjective intrests?

el commandante said:
While you cant prove a negative, Chavez, Morales and Correa are good examples.

A large portion of their "subjects" tend to disagree.

el commandante said:
He presided over one of the most free market economies on the planet. Have you heard of the Chicago boys and their free market experiment on Chile ?

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-chichile.htm

This assesment will leave you in no doubt he was a capitalist.

Not my realm or geography of history, but I will not post regarding the issue until I know more about it. To be honest, its not my concern. It was the responsibility of the Chileans to stand up and demand respect for their rights or use force to repel the invaders who refused such acts.

el commandante said:
The people nationalised their natural resources by compensating the multi nationals.

Was this a mutual, voluntary volitional choice? I don't think so. Therefore it is not what one could call "compensation", but instead resembles "extortion".

el commandante said:
If this is force then so is every other law done for the common good, like banning drink driving and drug dealing, competition laws, the list is endless.

No argument here.

There is no need for "drunk driving laws" if rights are enforced and protected.
There is no need for "drug dealing laws", and in fact, it is a disservice to the stated goal behind prohibition.
Competition laws are mostly contrived perversions of free trade, also, a form of unjust extortion.

The only just "competition law" is the concept of only trading with those sympathetic to the same values, such as, individual rights, and I can explain that if necessary.

[Mayberry]

And the assertion that socialism depends on force is not true. Ummmmmm..... let's see. USSR, China, Venezuela...... None of these are socialism by force? And how about Medicare, Socialist Security, etc...? These very much socialist programs are imposed by force upon me, are they not? What would happen to me if I refused to pay these taxes? A loss of my liberty and property would be swift and unstoppable, would they not?

[el comandante]

And the assertion that socialism depends on force is not true. Ummmmmm..... let's see. USSR, China, Venezuela...... None of these are socialism by force? And how about Medicare, Socialist Security, etc...? These very much socialist programs are imposed by force upon me, are they not? What would happen to me if I refused to pay these taxes? A loss of my liberty and property would be swift and unstoppable, would they not?



If you are taking that line of argument then as i already said, to stop you driving while drunk, or stop you selling drugs is too use force. Military spending by the government is to use force. Only in an ultra Libertarian state is there no 'force' and then you will probably experience force from thugs and gangsters. You may wish for anarchy, most rational people do not.

What happens if you fail to comply with any law laid out by the will of the people ? Usually prison. If putting murderers, rapists and whatever type of criminal in prison equates force, then so be it.

[firefox]

Comandante, here's some of my comments:

1. Force isn't the issue, so much as the initiation of force. If some fool attacks you, robs, you, or defrauds you, you absolutely have the right to rectify the situation, through violent force, as a last result. None of us are pacifists here, at least AFAIK.

2. Who is "the people," and what is their "will"? How do we go about determining and acting on that? Democracy is not freedom (http://democracyisnotfreedom.com/), and in its purest form, the ultimate form of oppressive collectivism. To quote Ben Franklin: “Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.”

3. I'd like to clarify/contest maten's definition of 'communism'. For communism, I look to this definition (it's wikipedia omg!): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_anarchism. In contrast, I see socialism as the state form of communism, where a government is formed to initiate force on innocent people, for allegedly communist-esque reasons.

[Osborn F. Enready]

el commandante said:
If you are taking that line of argument then as i already said, to stop you driving while drunk, or stop you selling drugs is too use force.

Exactly, the use of force determined by a line seperating legal and illegal. It is the PROCESS by which this "line" is determined that makes all the difference.

Responsibility for ones acts is not SUBJECTIVE.
Drawing lines such as you used above, ARE SUBJECTIVE, determined by a group who hold the same belief, against the will of those who don't, using force.

el commandante said:
Military spending by the government is to use force.

In the United States, as designed, the only JUST MEANS TO RAISE FUNDS FOR THE MILITARY was to provide for a STRICTLY DEFENSIVE FORCE. Due to that line being "arbitrarily" usurped, you have the problem you see today.... a military that is used as a foreign intervention force, as opposed to a national defense force.

el commandante said:
Only in an ultra Libertarian state is there no 'force' and then you will probably experience force from thugs and gangsters.

Thugs and gantgsters are individuals. I have a right to competent self defense as an individual, should I choose to exercise that right.

I as an individual, have an individual right to armed defense.
I as an individual, have legal right to seek recourse for any non-violent offense against my rights through the courts, based on OBJECTIVE facts, subjective testimony, and a fair trial before my PEERS.

el commandante said:
You may wish for anarchy, most rational people do not.

To compare limited government under a Libertarian policy, anarchy, is the most intellectually dishonest statement you could make, unless you are truly ignorant of the Libertarian platform and ideals.

Liberty and anarchism share nothing in common.


el commandante said:
What happens if you fail to comply with any law laid out by the will of the people ?

In the US by design, the will of the people can only affect issues that DON'T conflict directly with individual rights. That is what is meant by LIMITED GOVERNMENT. The majority, may not remove the rights of the minority, or vice versa. BOTH majority and minority are forbidden from passing laws that infringe directly on the individual rights of others.....

el commandante said:
Usually prison. If putting murderers, rapists and whatever type of criminal in prison equates force, then so be it.

Exactly, which is why there is usually no reasonable middle ground between socialists and communists who use force as their operative stablizer for public contentment, against the public itself.