Thread: Re-writing Communism

Originally Posted by Spartiate

I'm sure you can spot the difference between heavily taxed, peaceful countries like Canada or Denmark, and authoritarian regimes like Nazi Germany or fascist Italy. By your definition, every country on Earth is authoritarian as every country levies taxes, but know that this is not the popular use of the word. I'm also sure you can spot the difference between the state providing essential services to its citizens and demanding worship with military parades or purposefully spreading disinformation in state media.

Both governments are authoritative. It's not a matter of principle but a matter of degrees.

Originally Posted by Spartiate

Socialism is very much a middle ground between communism, capitalism and the "third way" of fascism. Prominent communists like Marx considered it a stepping stone towards communism.

Not really since both communism and fascism is a subset philosophy of socialism. Fascism is the socialism of the right, and communism the socialism of the left.

Originally Posted by Spartiate

I don't see how it's incoherent at all. The state is composed of all its citizens; no private entity should be above the influence of the state, simple. I didn't say we should call the state "Fatherland" or hang pictures of our leaders in classrooms or anything else like what you seem to be expecting.

You don't see the incoherence in thinking that the state should be superior over all private individuals but then say:
"I don't see the state as an authority that is above us all"

Originally Posted by Spartiate

Most people in a given area will have similar needs. If the area is so large that the people are constantly polarized on key issues (which is often the case when you have more than one "culture") then divide up the area into workable political entities. Direct democracy is impractical when we start talking about populations in the millions. A lot of people are idiots anyways and honestly shouldn't have anything to do with the day-to-day affairs of running a country. A transparent, representative democracy is a workable solution because the people don't have to worry about handling day-to-day affairs, they just have to come to an agreement as to if the politician is doing a good job or not. It is also not an oligarchy because politicians can be removed from power if they are not meeting the people's expectations. In this day and age with the ease of accessing and sharing information, average citizens are able to participate in political affairs much more easily rendering the system less exclusive.

So people shouldn't be involved in day-to-day affairs but again you think the state is something we participate in. Can you see the contradiction in this? You want to establish an oligarchical government in which certain people can dictate the day-to-day operations of other individuals? What happened to the egalitarianism? Oh wait they can just vote people out of power? Wonder, if you are the majority. Democracy just gives way to plutocrats who will give government favors to those who get them into office.

Originally Posted by Spartiate

Again, your loose definition of authoritarianism leads every socialist to appear fascist. In any case I was mostly referring to state-run enterprises.

Because all fascists are socialists. Is the state going to have a monopoly on the providing of the list you stated before? The food, shelter, healthcare, water list.

Originally Posted by Spartiate

Actually I'd call you an anarchist. How does geography affect the distribution of education or healthcare? The point is to have all the essentials taken care of so that a person doesn't have to slave their life away just getting by, this way they can concentrate on their interests and meaningful employment that is in line with their abilities, not their parents' wallet. How is libertarianism going to shorten the divide between poor and rich? How likely is a kid from the ghetto going to get post-secondary education? Or will he most likely be an unskilled labourer or a criminal... Right now geography and other factors that are out of our control have too much influence on our lives.

Now this is round 4 (?) for me in this thread... so I'll just cut right to the chase. You believe against any sort of imposition on a person, which precludes the existence of a government. I don't have this belief. Humans are social animals and for a society to function it is sometimes necessary to impose small sacrifices on individuals for the good of all.

Are all teachers in all the United States on the same level of expertise? Are all state education programs run the same way? Do all states have the same exact pollution problems? How does one better the living standards of a people? Through increase purchasing dollar of the monetary unit ( the increase in buying power of money ) and the increase in productive power of capital causing an increase in supply which leads to lowering prices. These two tenets go hand in hand. Discontinue government interference between two consenting parties ( minimum wage laws, child labor laws, EPA regulations, OSHA regulations ) and cut inflation allowing people to save thereby increasing long-term investment which will allow for research/construction of capital efficiency. You are also stuck in this notion that everyone has to go to college when many jobs actually train their employees what to do at their job. Now there are some technical professions that demand higher education but not everyone takes on these professions. Also realize that college is so expensive these days because of government granted loans. Schools can keep upping the cost of tuition because students can just get more loans to pay for it. There is really no point in getting thousands of dollars in debt unless you cannot go without the recognition of a degree or the technical knowledge of higher education.

Yes humans are social animals but just because we are social doesn't infer the right of ANY individual to make choices concerning what they sacrifice for them. If you want to consent to such a lifestyle that is your choice and people should be good enough to respect it. In reality there is no "good for all." It's a common mistake for those that preach utilitarianism. You cannot quantify how much better off people supposedly are because of some proposition and qualitative difference is subjective to the individual at hand. Really, the term the "good for all" is just a justification for the few to hoodwink the many.