[deathfun]

This is from another forum I frequent. I'm usually in constant debate against this one fellow who keeps quoting WSWS articles and saying how Capitalism has reached it's point where the workers will rise up and claim what's theirs. Our conversation ended up leading to wars. According to him, Wars will no longer be an issue as there will be no "Imperialistic Wars (as all Wars are imperialistic)".

I agree jack. The US has been in decline financially and economically on the world stage, and the political establishment attempts to slow or reverse that decline through militarism, raining down death and destruction upon the poor people of countries with oil reserves or which are key strategic interests for future conflicts between rival imperialist countries (like china).. Although in reality, the US does not have the largest population nor the largest economy, they do have the most heavily funded military apparatus in the world however, and they plan to use it and drag everyone into the abyss with them.

only the international working class intervening independently of the corporate parties, and taking political power, can the collapse of society be resolved and wars be put to an end.

There will be no wars. War goes fundamentally against the interests to the working class, humanity, and nature itself. It is a product of class division and when class division's dissolve, when national boundaries dissolve, so will war. To say otherwise is just cynicism and demoralization.

My response was that this would be highly unlikely. Afterall, you've got all these miniature wars between Hells Angels, the UN Gang (not the worldwide leaders UN) and others (just in Vancouver). I asked how Socialism intends to fix this problem. I also asked him how does Socialism intend to deal with other criminals such as drug dealers

His response?

why do you think "drug dealing" is a problem? If someone with the expertise is growing plants which I want, why shouldn't I be able to buy it from them? Why should socialism care what people are growing and selling?

The dangers of drug wars and gangs are caused by its criminalization and forced into underground markets. It's the fact that these things are not even on the official market that there needs to be a black market surrounded by paranoia, fear, and crime because it is illegal in the first place. It can be resolved even under capitalism. It is as simple as decriminalizing and legalizing drugs, something the working class will do almost immediately after assuming power.

The other things, gangs, all the theft and crime in our society, are products of poverty and unemployment, something socialism will also eliminate. Even rapists will eventually disappear because people will not be so sexually backward and deprived, they will be open and free.

there will be no need for prisons. There will be no need for police or military and certainly not for war. The act of murdering civilians from another country to crank out profits will be read in the history books with horror.

So uh, ya. I would love to hear what you guys have to say about this

[MP-Ryan]

Tell your opponent to post again once he's completed his university/college and has a more nuanced understanding of Marxist social theory.  His posts read like a 1st or 2nd year sociology student.  (I say this as someone who has studied and generally agrees with a fair bit of the Marxist sociological paradigm).

Marx posited that all conflict is born of economics and the disparity between the proletariat (workers) and bourgeouis (owners).  He was also writing in the late 19th and early 20th century.  He also didn't have much of a human history education, and relied on broad generalizations about the history and past of human civilization.  Last, he also didn't live to see the evolution of the middle class, which throws an uncomfortable wrench into traditional Marxist theory.

Marx got a lot of things right (depending on your perspective), but his belief that class conflict underlies all conflict was quite naive, as is your opponent's position.  We human beings have both cooperation and conflict behaviours programmed into our very biology; economic conflict is a symptom, not a cause.  The fact of the matter is that humans form social groups of varying sizes, and compete with other human social groups for resources (and not necessarily for scarcity, but frequently just because we can; human history is rife with examples of invasions and wars fought for no other reason than the opposing group is different in some way from the in-group).  While I sincerely hope that one day this competition and conflict will be expressed in ways other than lethal violence, I really do wonder if we'll ever get there.

Anyway, the fellow you're arguing with is approaching your discussion from a philosophical and ideological standpoint, and isn't heavily relying on facts.  If you'd like to knock him down a peg or two, ask him to speak in facts instead of his glorious vision of what would be.  His entire premise is based on the assumption that class conflict underlies all conflict, and there is ample historical evidence to thoroughly debunk that notion.

That, and know-it-all first- and second- year university arts students are really, really tedious to listen to.

[JCDNWarrior]

He seems to have a very positive and rosy onlook about socialism, and a big trust in a working class taking power. It's a lot more complex than that, and less glorious if it happens, I believe..

I think in the end it's more about collectivism versus individualism rather than socialism/marxism/communism/fascism, etc. Marx had some things that in a ideal situation would work well but in the end it, in my opinion at least, ends up causing a super class and/or tyranny ruling over the rest.

On socialism in particular, I feel that it causes many people to become dependent on government, especially the bigger the government is. Perhaps it's all about the execution that we've seen so far, that such ideologies haven't received a proper testbed/fertile soil to show it's most positive workings.

[Davros]

Tell him to calm down and have a cup of Tea, not just any Tea mind you

[Grizzly]

On socialism in particular, I feel that it causes many people to become dependent on government, especially the bigger the government is. Perhaps it's all about the execution that we've seen so far, that such ideologies haven't received a proper testbed/fertile soil to show it's most positive workings.

How about Scandinavia? They are quite socialistic.

[JCDNWarrior]

Perhaps, there's some debate on how socialistic Scandinavia truly is; HLP members living there could give a much better opinion or idea about it. Of course it always depends on the type of government and what version of socialism (democratic socialism, etc). I don't think it may be a bad system in itself though. If I were to have a choice I'd prefer freedom from government rather than dependency on a (benevolent) government nonetheless, though my opinion doesn't change whether or not Socialism could work well

Though I'd like to add this: "A government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take from you everything you have ... The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases" - Gerald Ford

Perhaps this statement is something to also consider - and how to avoid that a big government would become corrupt?

[Grizzly]

"A government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take from you everything you have ... The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases"

"The West, so afraid of strong goverment, now has no goverment, only financial power" - Deus Ex.

I'd rather be dependent on the goverment then the corperation. In the end, you are always dependend on something or someone. I'd rather be dependent on something that scores extremely high in the transperancy index.

Perhaps this statement is something to also consider - and how to avoid that a big government would become corrupt?

The size of the goverment  does nothing to increase or decrease corruption (having many things handled trough other organizations, which individually can become corrupt as well). I belive that corruption is more a cultural thing, though it also might depend on the strength of the law as a seperate estate (although once you cross a certain line of corruptability, or something, the law gets overturned). Come to think of it, it all biols down to the strength of the law.

[JCDNWarrior]

I definitely agree that a corporation is no better. Your quote is definitely something to consider, though I think it's because in Deus Ex instead of the usual government in place there's a secret shadow government taking command in the middle of a emergency and crisis.

Also agreed on the nature of corruption, though I think it's more about morality/ethics as well as social pressure ("When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.") on those in the government, as well as eternal vigilance and self sufficiency that is required.

On the size of government and corruption, perhaps it lies with bureaucracy as the core issue. Would a big government be able to function with no or a much smaller bureaucracy and overhead?

However, when the population as a whole for whatever reason is completely unable, even with best intentions, to be eternally vigilant, self-sufficient or psychologically unable to make decisions and keep politicians and government on a leash, something like a socialist model might be the next best thing. In that case, how would a successful socialist model remain free of corruption at the top and ensure equality for the population?

In this day and age maybe that's an important question to consider?

[Mika]

How about Scandinavia? They are quite socialistic.

What about Scandinavians? Socialistic? Well, that depends... Define what is meant by "Scandinavian Socialism" first, and what is meant by "Socialism" in the rest of the world? What would you want to know about socialism here? How many of you are aware of the differences of Scandinavian people and conditions compared to the rest of the world? If you don't know, the discussion becomes meaningless, fast.

Also, the reason for my short answer lies in the first post of the thread, I don't particularly want to participate on that discussion, seen that too many times already.

[Kosh]

I definitely agree that a corporation is no better. Your quote is definitely something to consider, though I think it's because in Deus Ex instead of the usual government in place there's a secret shadow government taking command in the middle of a emergency and crisis.

Not quite. The story for the original Deus Ex was basically a thought experiment about "what if the conspiracy theories about the NWO are true?" That's all the details I can go into without spoiling it too much.

[deathfun]

Also, the reason for my short answer lies in the first post of the thread, I don't particularly want to participate on that discussion, seen that too many times already.

Feel free to discuss whatever. My initial post was simply a starter to everything Socialist, not any particular aspect of it (unless you're referring to it as a whole)

I still haven't heard back from the guy, so I'm fairly certain he just shut up after realizing how ridiculous his point sounded. Afterall, this guy smokes DMT in his parents basement and acts condescending towards anyone who "hasn't seen what he has seen"

[JCDNWarrior]

I definitely agree that a corporation is no better. Your quote is definitely something to consider, though I think it's because in Deus Ex instead of the usual government in place there's a secret shadow government taking command in the middle of a emergency and crisis.

Not quite. The story for the original Deus Ex was basically a thought experiment about "what if the conspiracy theories about the NWO are true?" That's all the details I can go into without spoiling it too much.

As a whole, yes. I mean one of the core elements involved in the story.

Also OP, I apologize if I went off-topic on your question, I added this as a extension to the ideology behind socialism and if your opponent's opinion could be true given a certain circumstance, and curious as to how he reached such a conclusion in the first place.

Also, make sure to ask him what he has seen. Some universities do have lodges and other groups where people come together in support for various theories or ideologies. See if there's a rabbit hole to go down into.

[Mika]

I still haven't heard back from the guy, so I'm fairly certain he just shut up after realizing how ridiculous his point sounded. Afterall, this guy smokes DMT in his parents basement and acts condescending towards anyone who "hasn't seen what he has seen"

Rest assured he won't. Just ignore him, he won't affect your life in any way.

And Socialism here in Finland? It's ****ed at the moment. Make no mistake, it was good much earlier, tolerably ****ed recently, but now it's more ****ed than I ever thought could be possible. Having spent some hours yesterday and today browsing through the archives of the Parliament, yeah, there's no democracy, responsibility, accountability or media to report about it any more here. What the hell have we gotten ourselves into with this EU and Euro? It seems that no other country has had any kind of intention of following any trade or legal agreements that were supposed to be the cornerstone!

So basically, we're now ****ed. The cup is probably now overfilling, and seems to me that most politicians are living on a borrowed time - there will be quite drastic changes in the next referendum if they even survive in control that far. Finns are not known of being angry, but lesser known is the fact that they also don't calm down when they do get angry. Changing the Constitution to allow direct foreign influence in the internal affairs without asking by a referendum? What the HELL have they been, and still are, smoking? I wouldn't wonder if Finland decided to get out of EU soon, that is the general opinion of the whole fiasco here.

Welcome to the EU and EMU zone where profits are privatized and losses socialized!

[Mars]

Welcome to the EU and EMU zone where profits are privatized and losses socialized!

Welcome to the West!

[-Sara-]

There will be no wars. War goes fundamentally against the interests to the working class, humanity, and nature itself. It is a product of class division and when class division's dissolve, when national boundaries dissolve, so will war. To say otherwise is just cynicism and demoralization.

I can't judge that on a worldwide scale. I do know in the Netherlands over here a lot of strikes and political veto's were started by the working class (or their representative political parties) and more than often resulted in agreements or financial models which lack long-term vision or would not grow along with the dynamic economy of this century. For example their suggestion of making all the rich pay for everything in three-fold and letting the working class recover might solve things now, but would only result in a shrinking economy eventually.

why do you think "drug dealing" is a problem? If someone with the expertise is growing plants which I want, why shouldn't I be able to buy it from them? Why should socialism care what people are growing and selling?

The dangers of drug wars and gangs are caused by its criminalization and forced into underground markets. It's the fact that these things are not even on the official market that there needs to be a black market surrounded by paranoia, fear, and crime because it is illegal in the first place. It can be resolved even under capitalism. It is as simple as decriminalizing and legalizing drugs, something the working class will do almost immediately after assuming power.

The other things, gangs, all the theft and crime in our society, are products of poverty and unemployment, something socialism will also eliminate. Even rapists will eventually disappear because people will not be so sexually backward and deprived, they will be open and free.

there will be no need for prisons. There will be no need for police or military and certainly not for war. The act of murdering civilians from another country to crank out profits will be read in the history books with horror.

I know quite a few union peeps who live in that same illusion. Crime solves itself? By far not always, perhaps slightly at most. People do stupid things out of boredom, because of having neurological/psychiatric issues and habbit. E.g: A lot of sexual household abuse is a long chain of habbit, psychiatry helps there, not making sex open and free.

Maybe I'm a huge snob, but imho the majority of people on the world lack the intelligence to govern themselves responsibly, including me unless I bother to read up on political models and assimilate enough knowledge and experience to apply what I'd then know. Until schooling and education has increased greatly, most of the world population will need people to think FOR them, through politics for example. While many politicians have screwed up, they can often still look further into the future and speculate on what is a somewhat prudent move. I've heared too many 'short-term-solution, long-term-fail' suggestions from socialists and union peeps. Wanting to do things better than 'the Man' is ambitious, but to me that's not much different from a child stomping and shouting out of frustration because his parents told him he can't stay up late. The child can't see that the (in his eyes unfair) choice his parents made helps him in the long run to perform better at school if he's rested.

[Grizzly]

I can't judge that on a worldwide scale. I do know in the Netherlands over here a lot of strikes and political veto's were started by the working class (or their representative political parties) and more than often resulted in agreements or financial models which lack long-term vision or would not grow along with the dynamic economy of this century. For example their suggestion of making all the rich pay for everything in three-fold and letting the working class recover might solve things now, but would only result in a shrinking economy eventually.

I'd disagree a bit. Although the AOW strikes were indeed lacking in long term vision, a lot of it comes from the people who actually can't afford to stop working before they are 67 years old. There are a lot of rich people who stop working once they are 55 - 60 years old, which is, in my opinion, way to early. Rutte's policy of CUTTING EVERYTHING NOW also lacks a bit of long term vision, especially where education, health care and law enforcement is concerned (vital to long term economic production)

I think it is rather sad that a lot of things that are being cut now, such as subsidy for those who spend too long in university (you get fined for that now), should have been cut a lot earlier (Virtually infinite student subsidy was rigeriously abused by many students for many years, including by the politicians who now are cutting it), but were not because we were in an economic uplift all the time due to the baby boomers (another result of the short term vision of any politician).

[Grizzly]

The dangers of drug wars and gangs are caused by its criminalization and forced into underground markets. It's the fact that these things are not even on the official market that there needs to be a black market surrounded by paranoia, fear, and crime because it is illegal in the first place. It can be resolved even under capitalism. It is as simple as decriminalizing and legalizing drugs, something the working class will do almost immediately after assuming power.

Not sure the working class will actually do that (If the working class in the Netherlands would ASSUME DIRECT CONTROL, the majority of the people in Holland feel that drugs are quite awfull. Part of the reason for our policy is that people can do drugs in a 'safe' enviroment (coffeeshops have to do instructions and such).

Still, I do think that if you legalize drugs, and thus make them widely available, there is no need to get them from criminals, and thus, criminals lose a source of money and workforce (drug addicts). Cigarettes are also drugs (I do not know, but I suspect the line between hard drugs and soft drugs the dutch draw is based on cigarettes) and if those drug wars would be because off, well, drugs, then we'd be seeing that trouble with that too. There's also this ban on alcohols in the USA to consider.

[Flipside]

Sounds to me more like he is promoting 'me-ism', in other words "The world should work to suit my personal needs and desires". And, oddly enough, the whole 'If someone has the skill to grow something I want" comment sounds more like Ayn Rands' capitalist wet dream than Socialism...

[Mika]

Sounds to me more like he is promoting 'me-ism', in other words "The world should work to suit my personal needs and desires". And, oddly enough, the whole 'If someone has the skill to grow something I want" comment sounds more like Ayn Rands' capitalist wet dream than Socialism...

Which in continuation, sounds more like the definition of practical life version of Socialism.

[Flipside]

Well, I've never quite understood the whole concept of 'Never the twain shall meet' with regards to Capitalism and Socialism, it's not as if they are usually treated as extreme opposites of each other in practice. Most socialist countries supplement their income with some nice healthy Capitalism, and most Capitalist countries have a certain amount of Socialism. It's when the extremes are employed that trouble usually starts, and the best bet, to me, seems to be a mixture of both.