Does Socialism lead us to tyranny, communism, or dictatorshi

Post Reply New Topic

He didn't say it was an indication, he's saying socialism is the camel sticking its nose under the tent. No dictator has ever tried to impose tyranny while the checks and balances against em are in place, they've always weakened the checks and balances incrementally.

He didn't say the government has absolutely no role in society either, but that the government should be prevented from getting too big by preying on people's complacency towards dependence.

btw, I don't believe that power corrupts, but that the corrupt seek power. Not everyone is a decent human being, so positions of power definitely need checks and balances not only systematically, but socially. For example, the reason Canada's marijuana laws are very liberal is because the strong marijuana culture here has prevented our laws from degenerating into draconian laws, which is an example of social checks and balances against these type of laws being accepted into society.

The capitalist world has been paranoiac ever since the Russian revolution and the wealthy elite have had a steady anti-populist fervor ever since. Any concession to populist power has set off waves of fear that blossomed into suppressive action. The whole damned war on terror is an excuse to clamp down and wither away the basic social rights of the original Constitution, policies pushed hard by Bush and held on tightly and extended by Obama. First it was communism and that has been extended to socialism so that any attempt to give the USA even the minimums of good health and education and a decent wage level has been quashed by the idiotic propaganda against the basic decencies that are provided by other western democracies. That the American people have largely bought this political garbage testifies to their gullibility and stupidity.

Communism != totalitarian socialism. You are probably confusing communism with Stalinism, which is a common mistake. Communism refers to the hypothetical stateless society that is predicted to follow socialism in standard Marxist theory, once the state has outlived its usefulness. It is very far from totalitarian- after all, there is no state. Of course, it is also completely imaginary and will always be such.

Actually it does equal totalitarianism. The thing is how long it takes to devolve into totalitarianism. Already, people in Canada and most of the rest of Europe do not have free speech. You can be charged with hate crimes if you publicly critique any "protected" group. The left in the United States is essentially trying to do the same thing, they are only for free speech they agree with. That is why I have said and will continue to say the greatest threat to liberty comes from the left and not the right.

A person saying they like socialism, but hate dictatorships is like a person saying they love sleeping outside in the winter but hate pneumonia.

Right on, George. Up to your old tricks again, I see.

Inuyasha, please learn how to read. You clearly have no idea at all what was in the post of mine that you just quoted.

Wikipedia is generally a rich source of pointers and references into the the literature of a subject.

Wikipedia is best used as a jump off platform.

ruveyn

Just because it disagrees with your distorted world view does not mean that there isn't objectivity so much as that you cannot ever take your views being wrong.

The problem here in the US is that the right knows that it can't rely on social wedge issues to keep pro-capitalism / pro-corporate forces in power. Social wedge issues worked on the older generation but they aren't going to work on the under 30 crowd. In these economic conditions the right sees a real threat of left-populism. They know that the promotion of fear and anti-government hysteria is their best weapon against it. They know they can't win over the populace on more intellectual libertarian philosophical ideals. If the populace were not scared s**tless, they would wake up and start voting for their own interest over the interest of the pro-corporate elites. Therefore the right must keep the population scared s**tless through the use of conspiratorial right-wing media propaganda. People like Glenn Beck are tools bringing 1960s style JBS hysteria to a new audience. It's the same people who accused President Eisenhower of being a closet Communist in the 1950s who are now going after Obama.

Last edited by marshall on 18 Jan 2011, 5:56 pm, edited 1 time in total.

I haven't misinterpretted at thing, if you had bothered to read what I said, you'd notice that I was basically disputing what you said.

Communism = Totalitarianism

Socialism ends up leading to Totalitarianism and could also be argued as equivalent. It's called giving Government too much power and control over people's lives.

The problem here in the US is that the right knows that it can't rely on social wedge issues to keep pro-capitalism / pro-corporate forces in power. Social wedge issues worked on the older generation but they aren't going to work on the under 30 crowd. In these economic conditions the right sees a real threat of left-populism. They know that the promotion of fear and anti-government hysteria is their best weapon against it. They know they can't win over the populace on more intellectual libertarian philosophical ideals. If the populace were not scared s**tless, they would wake up and start voting for their own interest over the interest of the pro-corporate elites. Therefore the right must keep the population scared s**tless through the use of conspiratorial right-wing media propaganda. People like Glenn Beck are tools bringing 1960s style JBS hysteria to a new audience. It's the same people who accused President Eisenhower of being a closet Communist in the 1950s who are now going after Obama.

You were also flat wrong. Communism != totalitarianism because in Communism, by definition, the state does not exist. How can you have totalitarian anarchy? There is no government to be given too much power. You are incorrectly conflating socialism and communism, because like all intellectually shallow Beckites you believe that every single group on the left is part of a completely monolithic bloc.

Your argument isn't even remotely grounded in reality for goodness sakes, the only way for a Communist style of living can be maintained is the Government controling everything hence totalitarianism. Humans do have a desire to be better, to compete which is entirely contrary to Communism. We have a pack mentality only up to a point and even in a herd or pack there is always a hierarchy that develops where some people have more power than others.

The Communist Utopia idea looks good on paper, but is not even remotely plausible in real life.

Hence why I said, in reference to Communism, "Of course, it is also completely imaginary and will always be such." As I said, you need to learn how to read. But it is important to draw the distinction. According to Marxist theory, a socialist state will form after a worker's revolt against the industrial elite, and once the necessary radical social changes have occurred, the state will outlive its usefulness and wither away, leaving a stateless Communist society. Now, Marxist theory can and should be criticized because so much of it is just utter crap, but it does not help anything to knock down straw men.

I always thought socialism meant that the society owns collectively the means of producing the necessities. So utilities and food production etc are publically owned. Whereas non essential items are privately owned. So music industry and car manufacturers would be private.

Communism I think of as everything is owned centrally whether its essential or non essential. So our government owns it and employs us to run it.

Capitalism I think is that everything is owned privately, the thinking being that special interests will develop in industry and make things better! And Yeah it is!! !