Socialism-- a response to a liberal socialist.

[teacherone]

Under a socialist society individuals are meaningless, their rights can be trampled upon, their property confiscated, their lives destroyed all for the "Common Good" of the collective.

Under Socialism individuals possess nothing, because it is the State which determines the minimum standard of living good enough for the Collective and forceably removes and redistributes individual wealth so that all achieve this arbitrary minimum standard.

Under socialism no one is allowed to profit, because profit is evil; it produces inequality and is only the motive that drives "greedy capitalists." An artist who creates a masterpiece or an inventor who toils to create something new and innovative, does not profit from his effort; he cannot profit, for in the name of "Equality" his work belongs to the collective group. His profits are therefore forcibly removed and handed over to the lesser competent in the name of Equality.

Under socialism you cannot better your standard of living; you cannot rise up the social ranks when there are none. The station you were born in is the station you will die in. You will not leave behind an inheritance for your children, you will not imagine a better future for them or hope that their lives will be better than yours-- there is no better, there is no worse, there is only equality.

Freedom and socialism are antithetical and cannot exist within the same sphere. Socialism means that your life is planned and organized by the supreme elites who control the machine of the state. They decide how much you are allowed to earn, which jobs you are worthy of, under which standard of living you will suffer through your days.

Socialism, Communism, Fascism, it makes no difference. They are all forms of Totalitarianism where individuals are no longer recognized as such, only insignificant cogs in the Collective Machine. It should come as no surprise that Socialism leads to Totalitarian Dictatorships-- Stalin, Lenin, Mao, Mussolini, Hitler, Kim Jong Il.

Is this what you want?

[Elwar]

I prefer liberals that understand that they want socialism over those who claim that they don't want socialism, while supporting socialism.

At least you can have a reasonable argument about the merrits of socialism vs the free market. Otherwise it just comes down to "Bush sucks!".

[ClayTrainor]

Try to smash through the paradigm if possible. Don't badmouth socialism, but try to convince him that he doesn't need to chase after political force to achieve his socialist dreams.

For example, explain how wikipedia is a form of socialism you can support. Wikipedia, gets it's value from over 100 million people voluntarily sharing information for free. You don't need to buy $500 worth of encyclopedia's anymore, or even pay for the Encarta DVDs and support big business.

Linux is another great example of how we don't need big business to build stable operating systems that even our corrupt governments are willing to use, because they're so effective.

The internet is revolutionizing the way we view democracy and capitalism, and the individual has direct input into the construction of our most powerful assets. You should take the time to watch the movie in this thread http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=214724

I believe this is the answer to get true socialists and true capitalists working together against oppression, without forfeiting our core principles.

The internet is where both capitalism and socialism can unite against oppression. We own our domains and servers, that's private property... But socialists can form public property if they choose to do so as well, just as wikipedia has proven. Voluntary interactions amongst us are the key. We must remove the feeling that we need to enforce our politics on one another.

[Vessol]

Not all liberals are socialists, just wanted to toss that out there from a liberal turned libertarian.

[teacherone]

Not all liberals are socialists, just wanted to toss that out there from a liberal turned libertarian.

slippery slope though

[LibertyMage]

Philosophical arguments don't work. You have to show people why socialized industry doesn't work practically.

[ClayTrainor]

Philosophical arguments don't work. You have to show people why socialized industry doesn't work practically.

Then why does wikipedia work so well? Is that not the information industry? Encyclopedias used to be sold and produced by big business. I'm 100% into capitalism by the way, but i accept socialism on the basis that political force is removed. Voluntary individuals interacting and sharing for free (wikipedia, linux, etc) is a form of socialism i endorse and participate in. I personally think these arguments have the ability to smash the paradigm, and getting us on the same page with the leftists and rightists alike, in working against the government. Arguing over history can be interpreted sooooooooo many ways, you have to simply point out the dark side of the force, and people will gravitate away from it :)

Sympathizing with peoples core beliefs is how you win them over, not by telling them they're just wrong. IMO, of course. :)

[Vessol]

slippery slope though

The same applies for Conservatives and Republicans, slippery slope to Fascism.


Then why does wikipedia work so well? Is that not the information industry? Encyclopedias used to be sold and produced by big business. I'm 100% into capitalism by the way, but i accept socialism on the basis that political force is removed. Voluntary individuals interacting and sharing for free (wikipedia, linux, etc) is a form of socialism i endorse and participate in. I personally think these arguments have the ability to smash the paradigm, and getting us on the same page with the leftists and rightists alike, in working against the government. Arguing over history can be interpreted sooooooooo many ways, you have to simply point out the dark side of the force, and people will gravitate away from it :)

Sympathizing with peoples core beliefs is how you win them over, not by telling them they're just wrong. IMO, of course. :)

Open Source=/=Socialism.

Socialism is simply the centralization of the economy under the State.

[1836er]

I've been having the "socialism and liberty are mutually exclusive" debate with a colleague of mine at work (a sociology professor, imagine that!) for a number of years. While I can usually see his side of the story pretty clearly - he's a big-time collectivist who embraces the whole freedom really means "freedom from necessity" paradigm - he seems blissfully unwilling to even try to understand (note I said "understand" here, not accept) my point of view that only government can truly oppress since no other human institutions, including big business, have the lawful authority to kill, fine, imprison, or dispossess one of his property. The worst big business can do to you, by comparison, is refuse to hire you, refuse to sell to you, or refuse to buy from you.

Of course to these ideas he will say "Hogwash, look at all the particular ways big business oppresses us?" to which I will reply, "yes, but only - and here is the key to understanding private-sector oppression - it can exist only when businesses figure out how to use the coercive powers of government against us, like for example, by getting special tax breaks or exceptions from the laws the rest of us have to follow, protectionist tariffs that drive lower-priced competitors out of business effectively creating government sponsored monopolies, no-bid contracts for government projects/programs that might go to otherwise more worthy proprietors, government subsidies and corporate welfare and bailouts paid for by the taxpayers, by giving them exclusive rights to land, property, and resources they don't own, and on and on and on." At this point I've nearly lost him, but I will continue with one last point to drive in the final stake in my argument... "And do you know what the easiest remedy is to make sure big business never does any of that awful stuff I just mentioned...? Don't give the government the power to tax, make rules regulating the use of private property, redistribute wealth, or establish barriers to domestic or foreign trade, and you deprive big business of the means through which it can oppress us."

As you can probably guess this whole thing tends to be a pretty useless endeavor, however, as my friend worships (all but literally) at the altar of social and economic justice, doesn't really believe in the concept of Creator-endowed inalienable/natural rights, and seems emotionally incapable of even considering the notion that "restraint from the use of coercion" could possibly be the proper definition of morality, and its opposite the proper definition of tyranny.

[LibertyMage]

Then why does wikipedia work so well? Is that not the information industry? Encyclopedias used to be sold and produced by big business. I'm 100% into capitalism by the way, but i accept socialism on the basis that political force is removed. Voluntary individuals interacting and sharing for free (wikipedia, linux, etc) is a form of socialism i endorse and participate in. I personally think these arguments have the ability to smash the paradigm, and getting us on the same page with the leftists and rightists alike, in working against the government. Arguing over history can be interpreted sooooooooo many ways, you have to simply point out the dark side of the force, and people will gravitate away from it :)

Sympathizing with peoples core beliefs is how you win them over, not by telling them they're just wrong. IMO, of course. :)

"Voluntary individuals interacting and sharing for free" is not socialism. Per Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism):


Socialism refers to various theories of economic organization advocating public or direct worker ownership and administration of the means of production and allocation of resources, and a society characterized by equal access to resources for all individuals with a method of compensation based on the amount of labor expended.

As I said in my previous post, socialism is socialized industry. Socialism is central planning. Socialism is the revocation of private property rights. Socialism is force.

Wikipedia works so well because it is a function of decentralized organization. Wikipedia is the epitome of what happens in a free market when people are able to act freely and exchange ideas freely. Wikipedia is the essence of what a free market is.

[Icymudpuppy]

If they are evolutionist socialists, make sure you explain the concept of survival of the fittest, and how socialism supports the weakest members of society to the detriment of the strongest and cripples evolution.

[SelfTaught]

Do not forget to add that when you concentrate power in a centralized government, the most corrupt and degenerate members of society are drawn to it. The fewer tasks assigned to a governing body means less opportunities for power to be exploited or manipulated.

[awake]

Liberal Socialist - Isn't that like saying you are a free slave?

[ClayTrainor]

"Voluntary individuals interacting and sharing for free" is not socialism. Per Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism):



As I said in my previous post, socialism is socialized industry. Socialism is central planning. Socialism is the revocation of private property rights. Socialism is force.

Wikipedia works so well because it is a function of decentralized organization. Wikipedia is the epitome of what happens in a free market when people are able to act freely and exchange ideas freely. Wikipedia is the essence of what a free market is.

First off, I 100% agree Wikipedia is the epitome of the free market, and i'm not arguing against that or your definition of socialism. I'm trying to illustrate what i find to be an effective debate strategy against socialists. They are in love with the word socialism and it is the core of their beliefs. Sort of how capitalism is at the core of a lot of our beliefs. When someone like Michael Moore conflates capitalism with corporatism, we get pissed. When we conflate socialism with Marx or the Soviets, socialists get pissed. (even though we're right). The core of the socialist emotions, if they are honest, is that they truly believe that social organization is much better than "economic isolationism" (which is how they view individualism / capitalism.)

By simply badmouthing "socialism" with historical examples, or whatever, you will get resentment from them in return. However, by providing examples of "Social organization" in the free-market, that are far superior to any political form of socialism, you can really make a strong case for the free-market that they will be forced to agree with.

Simply arguing against socialism is not an effective tactic against socialists, in my experience, and that's the point of my post. Sure you might feel like a winner in the debate but, they will probably resent you unless you sympathize with their core beliefs (social organization).

Just trying to pass on some friendly advice. :) Eliminate their want for the state to control the social organization, or "socialism", show examples of how individuals organizing on the internet can do it better, and you've essentially got them the side of the free-market, or at the very least, you're working them in the right direction.

[WClint]

Its seems strange that you can find anything palatable about the socialists who are nothing more than collectivists.

A safety net only helps those who nature says shouldn't be helped in the first place. In a moral society you would have the option of giving charity and having more choice on who should get your aid, rather than an amoral one which takes it by force and redistributes to the parasitic class.

[ClayTrainor]

Its seems strange that you can find anything palatable about the socialists who are nothing more than collectivists.

Do you even realize the irony of this post? Do you think anyone who is self-proclaimed "socialist", is just hopeless and evil on the individual level? I bet you a lot of people here came from socialist beliefs in the past. People have to learn, and we have to help lead them in the right direction, not make them resent us!!!

You have to admit that you just made a massively hypocritical statement. You just displayed immense collectivist thought. Watch this video asap!

YouTube - -DVD Version: INTRO - Individualism vs Collectivism (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XMYicq_SN1E)

I believe on the individual level that 99% of all people are good moral people, and the force that government provides to groups, is the only real evil in our path.

I'm not willing to think an individual who calls himself a socialist is just hopeless, although some of them may very well be... That strategy is 100% guaranteed fail!


A safety net only helps those who nature says shouldn't be helped in the first place. In a moral society you would have the option of giving charity and having more choice on who should get your aid, rather than an amoral one which takes it by force and redistributes to the parasitic class.

I 100% agree, if you mean an enforced safety net. You made this edit after i wrote the above :o

But still, arguing against socialism is not an effective strategy against socialists... there are better ways to bring them to the free market. :)

[1836er]

Just trying to pass on some friendly advice. :) Eliminate their want for the state to control the social organization, or "socialism", show examples of how individuals organizing on the internet can do it better, and you've essentially got them the side of the free-market, or at the very least, you're working them in the right direction.

Agree. Collectivism is not incompatible with freedom/capitalism as long as it limited to people forming into voluntary collectives that have no power to exercise coercive power over other people's lives, rights, or property. I'll highlight examples like the Shaker Communes and the Oneida Community from 19th century America for people who wanted the total collectivist experience, and the fraternal societies (communal health care) so popular in the 19th and early 20th centuries.

For more info on "fraternal societies" as providers of communal health care check out this article: http://libertariannation.org/a/f12l3.html

Unfortunately I don't think most modern Western socialists will be satisfied with voluntary collectivism; for many their beliefs are more defined by a desire to impose social/economic justice via righteous coercion and to get even with their perceived enemies than by a true desire to create a harmonious utopia.