Have you gone from being a Libertarian to Socialism?

coolemon

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

The point is that in general, ones class consciousness is shaped by ones class position. And that when placed in a situation where ones economic interests are challenged, one will act or believe in something in accordance with these interests.

It is also the Marxist contention that those best placed to apply the ideas of socialist social change are the proletariat, and that, in general, a person of the bourgeoisie may not, or may find it impossible, to conceive of the ideas for that form of social change.

But - one could advocate the Marxist interpretation of history (and its scientific methodology), and thus more broadly Marxist theories, while occupying the position of bourgeoisie.

Does that mean that they can conceive of the ideas required to construct an alternative mode of production? - no, not necessarily. But it is also the case that all, if not the overwhelming majority of proletarians cannot conceive of socialism either at this point in time.

But as I say. With Marxism, its not a moral issue. The issue is that when it comes to the crunch ones economic interests may conflict and contradict what one is advocating. Calling it hypocritical to me would suggest a moral dimension to it.

coolemon

gobsh!te wrote: »

I don't support initiation of violence but clearly any kind of socialist has no problem with it.

I think that so long as you believe in private property you must also believe in some form of violence. To believe in the state is to believe in an organised coercive force. Even an anarcho-capitalist would believe in some non-state coercive force.

The difference is that the violence you advocate is normalised. Indeed you might find that "Socialist" state violence in the USSR et al was normalised too. Most people got on with what they were doing and never challenged law and order.

Capitalism I think necessitates violence and organised coercion. Communism, in the Marxist and anarchist tradition, does not.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

coolemon

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Marxism does not believe socialism to be inevitable. For example Engles stated that "Bourgeois society stands at the crossroads, either transition to socialism or regression into barbarism."

The bourgeois state is an entity of violence. Of course to gain power that violence needs to be confronted. Whether that's in self defence or by offence.

coolemon

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Communism, as a society, could conceivably exist without most forms of violence or coercion. After all, the state would not exist.

Capitalism on the other hand necessitates violence as private property needs to be enforced and maintained.

Iwasfrozen

coolemon wrote: »

Communism, as a society, could conceivably exist without most forms of violence or coercion. After all, the state would not exist.

Capitalism on the other hand necessitates violence as private property needs to be enforced and maintained.

Oh? And who's going to make all the stuff in this new dream world?

gobsh!te

coolemon wrote: »

Communism, as a society, could conceivably exist without most forms of violence or coercion. After all, the state would not exist.

Capitalism on the other hand necessitates violence as private property needs to be enforced and maintained.

Communism has only ever existed through use of force.

Capitalism is not a system in itself. It is what happens when people are free.

Private Property needs to be enforced and maintained???

Do you prefer your own toilet or public toilets? It's a good analogy. The public toilets do not need to be maintained and that is why they are as they as.

Private Property needs to be respected not enforced. The only force used is in defense against someone that initiates violence as part of their belief system( say a Marxist or a radical Muslim).

How strongly do you believe in Marx? Are you using the dirty public toilets or do you sh!t in your own PRIVATE toilet?

Brian?

gobsh!te wrote: »

Communism has only ever existed through use of force.

The use of force to enforce a state system is not in keeping with communism. In true communism the state would have ceased to exist.

As I've said before, calling something socialism/communism doesn't make it so. I'm pretty sure Marx would have been disgusted with the way the USSR was run.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

gobsh!te

Brian? wrote: »

The use of force to enforce a state system is not in keeping with communism. In true communism the state would have ceased to exist.

As I've said before, calling something socialism/communism doesn't make it so. I'm pretty sure Marx would have been disgusted with the way the USSR was run.

I don't ever want to be part of a communist system. How will I and others be part of it? Through force of course....there is no other way.

Marx would not have cared as long as Engels or someone like him kept giving him money to write more nonsense.

Brian?

gobsh!te wrote: »

Nonsense....if a man could not manage his own financial affairs other than borrowing from his mate, why would anyone other than fool take his ideas on managing a nation or the world's financial affairs seriously?

If you want to attack Marx's ideas for their merit, have at it. Go ahead. This character assassination you're hell bent on is completely pointless. It has zero to do with his work.

Marx's ideas have been tested and the closer you get to his ideas the worse things get for people.....nobody wants it....the only way you can implement this garbage is through the initiation of force.

I don't support initiation of violence but clearly any kind of socialist has no problem with it.

You know nothing about socialism. It's the only explanation for the skewed view you have of it. I'm a pacifist as well as a socialist. I'm very fat from alone in being both.

Brian?

gobsh!te wrote: »

I don't ever want to be part of a communist system. How will I and others be part of it? Through force of course....there is no other way.

Slow moving social evolution, that's how.

Marx would not have cared as long as Engels or someone like him kept giving him money to write more nonsense.

Golf clap, hilarious stuff.

gobsh!te

Brian? wrote: »

If you want to attack Marx's ideas for their merit, have at it. Go ahead. This character assassination you're hell bent on is completely pointless. It has zero to do with his work.

Would you take advice from a beggar on how to have the best system for distributing wealth?

Oh, actually you kind of already have.

Back on the topic, I am shocked there are still Marxists today the same way I am shocked that people full on believe in the Catholic Church....I just cannot believe people fall for it...unless they are children or at least a young adult.

Don't you ever wonder why nobody goes from being a Libertarian to a Marxist while the other war around is quite common?

gobsh!te

Brian? wrote: »

Slow moving social evolution, that's how.

They have a similar idea in Islam on how it will become a worldwide system also. I don't buy either on of them. Both nonsense systems to me.

BoJack Horseman

Brian? wrote: »

Slow moving social evolution, that's how.

Tell that to our eastern European friends.

When people are actually given a choice they reject communism utterly.

You can counter this truism by providing a list of communist democracies of course.

I thought JRG was the only boardsie who embraced the hammer & sickle..... guess not!

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

oscarBravo

coolemon wrote: »

The bourgeois state is an entity of violence.

Not quite. The bourgeois state holds a monopoly on violence. This is often cited as a Bad Thing, but the alternative to a monopoly is a free market. If anyone wants to argue that a free market in violence is a Good Thing, I'm all ears.


(Hat tip to Jill Leovy's excellent book Ghettoside.)

Brian?

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I agree with a hell of a lot of what Marx wrote. But I reject the notion that communism can be imposed through violent revolution. Slow social evolution is the only way to create a truly equitable society.

Social evolution has already brought us through feudal and industrial phases. We've moved from an essentially feudal society in Europe to a social democracy, in less that 200 years. My hope is that this social evolution will move on and not be torn to pieces in the name of personal "liberty".

gobsh!te

oscarBravo wrote: »

Not quite. The bourgeois state holds a monopoly on violence. This is often cited as a Bad Thing, but the alternative to a monopoly is a free market. If anyone wants to argue that a free market in violence is a Good Thing, I'm all ears.


(Hat tip to Jill Leovy's excellent book Ghettoside.)

Would a free market on violence have created atomic weapons and 2 world wars?

gobsh!te

Brian? wrote: »

Social evolution has already brought us through feudal and industrial phases. We've moved from an essentially feudal society in Europe to a social democracy, in less that 200 years.

That is the same democracy that brought the Nazis to power in Germany? We are talking about the same democracy, right?

Brian?

gobsh!te wrote: »

That is the same democracy that brought the Nazis to power in Germany? We are talking about the same democracy, right?

You've a very poor understanding of history. The Nazis taking control of the German government was done by coup(putz ) not democracy.

You're anti democracy? Is that your point?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Brian?

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Who's calling themselves a Marxist?

The transformation from monarchical feudalism to modern liberal capitalist democracies didn't occur because of some passive notion of "social evolution." It happened because in the great age of Enlightenment individualism, thinkers such as Locke, Voltaire, and Montesquieu passionately argued for the very same "personal liberty" that you have the luxury today of holding in contempt.

This is exactly the point I have made repeatedly. The origins of libertarianism is with the above. As a socialist libertarian I have far more in common with the enlightenment thinkers than the anarcho-capitalists who call themselves libertarians today.

Brian?

Just to be crystal I don't hold the idea of personal liberty in contempt. What I hold in contempt is the notion that personally liberty is achieved through capitalist means and is best served by a laisse fairs capitalist society.

Personal liberty is extremely important.

oscarBravo

gobsh!te wrote: »

Would a free market on violence have created atomic weapons and 2 world wars?

It pretty much did.

When I talk of a monopoly on violence, I'm talking about a state's monopoly on violence. Outside the confines of a state, no such monopoly exists, which is why wars happen.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

catbear

Can one be socially liberal and fiscally conservative?

I don't see it as either/or but as a balancing act. We need social initiatives like education and disease prevention yet we need to feel we have choice.

oscarBravo

catbear wrote: »

We need social initiatives like education and disease prevention yet we need to feel we have choice.

Welcome to the world of the centrist - despised by ideologues at every edge.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.