Union of Soviet Socialist Ran's Board Threads

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

There seems to be a theme running on the board for the last few weeks regarding the joys of more extreme socialism. How eliminating private property and limiting incomes will help make everyone happier. I've said in the past, and I still believe, that I like socialist ends. I like everyone having more. I like employee's owning the fruits of their labor. As such I, when I can, buy from co'ops and other employee owned groups. I like encouraging that business model. I like it when people voluntarily choose to live more equalized lives and beg off from aggressive overconsumption.

That said what I've always objected to are more extreme socialist means is using force to impose socialist ideals from above. Using government to force people to make less. To force people to live as I think they should live. To take propety by force from its current owners and giving it to people the government deems worthy.

The three most prominent examples of extreme socialist means, that I can think of, are the Soviet Union, China (Pre-captialist opening), and Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge. In each of the three examples I list many people were killed by their government in an effort to create socialist paradises.

Assuming our various governments or one new global socialist government were to take Stego's favored goal and chooses to "Meat the Rich". How does it avoid the extremes of other more extreme Socialist Governments? Would the dead simply be the eggs that are broken to make a new socialist omlet or can the extremes of the USSR, Cultural Revolution/Great Leap Forward China, and Pol Pot's Cambodia be avoided in a more extreme Socialist Revolution?

[Hereward]

You forgot one. Who can forget the mass executions, brutal censorship and work camps resulting from the election of the Labour Party in 1945 on a platform of introducing the cradle-to-grave welfare state, the National Health Service, the nationalisation of all key industries and the national housing strategy?

No, wait...

[Daeric]

I bet they also sectrely had a hand in the death of the hover car as well Hereward

[Usotsuki]

That I think was the British Empire in its laissez-faire heyday; soaked in blood, laden with looted gold and entranced by stolen art but regrettably absent-minded.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Hereward,

You forgot one. Who can forget the mass executions, brutal censorship and work camps resulting from the election of the Labour Party in 1945 on a platform of introducing the cradle-to-grave welfare state, the National Health Service, the nationalisation of all key industries and the national housing strategy?

No, wait...

I'm not talking about democratic socialism of the type practiced in Western Europe. I'm attempting to draw attention to more extreme styles that purport to eliminate nasty practices like the ownership of private property and who are willing to shed a little blood to reach that goal.

[MinDonner]

What fresh hell is this? Scot advocates socialism and Hereward applauds a Labour victory? I knew I shouldn't have climbed through that looking-glass this morning. :stunned:

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Min,

I'm not advocating socialism in total. What I believe in are Socialist ends, I've never believed in Socialist means is using force to impose socialist ideals from above.

[Datepalm]

Hereward,

I'm not talking about democratic socialism of the type practiced in Western Europe. I'm attempting to draw attention to more extreme styles that purport to eliminate nasty practices like the ownership of private property and who are willing to shed a little blood to reach that goal.

The only place I know elimination of property to actually have happened on a largish scale is the kibbutzes. Collectivized socks and month long debates synthesizing Marx and Freud on whether to buy another teapot probably should count as crimes against humanity though.

Besides that, the answer is education.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

DP,

The only place I know elimination of property to actually have happened on a largish scale is the kibbutzes. Collectivized socks and month long debates synthesizing Marx and Freud on whether to buy another teapot probably should count as crimes against humanity though.

Besides that, the answer is education.

Correct me if I'm wrong but Kibbutzes are examples of voluntary socialization. I'm talking about governments that attempted to impose extreme socialism from above.

[Hereward]

What do you mean, you're not talking about democratic socialism? You asked how it was possible to bring about socialist ends without "socialist means", but now you're not willing to consider any examples that don't "shed a little blood"? That makes no sense. You're refusing to consider any examples that invalidate your own hypothesis.

For the record, I'm not applauding a Labour victory and Labour policies. I think the economy created by Labour's policies was disastrous.

[Datepalm]

DP,

Correct me if I'm wrong but Kibbutzes are examples of voluntary socialization. I'm talking about governments that attempted to impose extreme socialism from above.

mm-hm. Got it. When has any government banned private property?

Edit: Yeah, what Hereward said. The first thing that came to mind, when I take power as ultimate socialist dictator of doom from my giant mountain fortress shaped like Lenins head, was to insititute democracy.

What are "socialist methods" anyway? The tactics used by oppressive governments are pretty boringly similar, whether they called themselves commies or not.

[Usotsuki]

Ser Scot, what exactly are socialist means? Executions, confiscations, restrictions on freedom of speech, massive displays of synchronised drumming? These have all had a fairly important role in the creation of market economies, except possibly the synchronised drumming.

Datepalm, be grateful that no one ever raised the tricky issue of the tea cosy.:P

[Hereward]

Ser Scot, what exactly are socialist means? Executions, confiscations, restrictions on freedom of speech, massive displays of synchronised drumming? These have all had a fairly important role in the creation of market economies, except possibly the synchronised drumming.

Don't be so sure. I was subjected to synchronised drumming at Ashridge and have you seen what they charge? Definitely market economics. :P

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Hereward,

What do you mean, you're not talking about democratic socialism? You asked how it was possible to bring about socialist ends without "socialist means", but now you're not willing to consider any examples that don't "shed a little blood"? That makes no sense. You're refusing to consider any examples that invalidate your own hypothesis.

For the record, I'm not applauding a Labour victory and Labour policies. I think the economy created by Labour's policies was disastrous.

Are you equating a Labour government in the UK with the USSR, CR/GLF China, and the Khmer Rouge? As far as I know no democratic Socialist movement, please correct me if I'm wrong, has ever attempted to eliminate private ownership of land or other property. That's what I'm focusing on here, not Western European democratic socialism, but more extreme socialism where everything will be owned by the government and by extension "the People". I think they are fairly different things.

DP,

Edit: Yeah, what Hereward said. The first thing that came to mind, when I take power as ultimate socialist dictator of doom from my giant mountain fortress shaped like Lenins head, was to insititute democracy.

What are "socialist methods" anyway? The tactics used by oppressive governments are pretty boringly similar, whether they called themselves commies or not.

I think the big thing I'm thinking of is confiscation of private property and collectivised land ownership imposed, not voluntarily like Kibbutzes, but by Governement Fiat.

Usotsuki,

Synchronized drumming. That's a pretty damn effective means.

When I say socialist means I'm talking about empowering government to force people to give up private property. To cap people's incomes at a certian level. To make private ownership of property illegal. I understand this is not what has happened in democratic socialist States. Hence, the distiction I'm trying to draw.

[Hereward]

Hereward,

Are you equating a Labour government in the UK with the USSR, CR/GLF China, and the Khmer Rouge? As far as I know no democratic Socialist movement, please correct me if I'm wrong, has ever attempted to eliminate private ownership of land or other property. That's what I'm focusing on here, not Western European democratic socialism, but more extreme socialism where everything will be owned by the government and by extension "the People". I think they are fairly different things.

You did read what the Labour Party was elected to institute in 1945, right? That was full socialism, not the pretend socialism Obama gets accused of. The nationalisation of the coal, steel, car, ship-building, defence, railway, chemical industries, etc, etc. A national pay policy, rationing, public housing, punitive taxation rates, a "to each according to his needs" welfare state. How is that different from what you said people on Ran's were advocating?

You then followed that up by asking how it was possible to do this without the bloodshed and atrocities of three carefully chosed tyrannical examples. Now you don't want to take the example as evidence because there was no bloodshed and tyranny*. Well, if you didn't want an actual debate, just to be able to say that socialism leads to Pol Pot and Stalin, perhaps you shouldn't have bothered asking the question.

Edit in response to your clarification: In short, incomes were controlled, punitive death taxes were introduced to redistribute wealth and there was wholescale, widespread nationalisation. How does the example not apply?

*only low growth, inflation and excessive tea breaks.

[Datepalm]

Datepalm, be grateful that no one ever raised the tricky issue of the tea cosy.:P

It it percisely that kind of bourgeouise, european, diasporic, exile-judaic thinking they were trying to escape. And their mothers.

Are you equating a Labour government in the UK with the USSR, CR/GLF China, and the Khmer Rouge?

Usotsuki,

Synchronized druming. That's a pretty damn effective means.

Are you calling any of those socialist? I'm pretty sure that we've had this conversation before, but there are very few, very basic, unmmovable principles of socialism. If "collectivizing property" actually means killing off people and concentrating that property in the hands of a very few, leading to further inequality, I feel quite safe in saying these people were not real socialists.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Hereward,

You did read what the Labour Party was elected to institute in 1945, right? That was full socialism, not the pretend socialism Obama gets accused of. The nationalisation of the coal, steel, car, ship-building, defence, railway, chemical industries, etc, etc. A national pay policy, rationing, public housing, punitive taxation rates, a "to each according to his needs" welfare state. How is that different from what you said people on Ran's were advocating?

You then followed that up by asking how it was possible to do this without the bloodshed and atrocities of three carefully chosed tyrannical examples. Now you don't want to take the example as evidence because there was no bloodshed and tyranny*. Well, if you didn't want an actual debate, just to be able to say that socialism leads to Pol Pot and Stalin, perhaps you shouldn't have bothered asking the question.

*instead of low growth, inflation and excessive tea breaks.

Fair enough. Up until that post I had never heard about that.

That said I'm thinking, additionaly, of collectivzation of farms and banning individuals from owning land. That's all owned by the Government and people are forced to work on collectives.

(Excessive tea breaks? Harsh man, harsh.)

DP,

Are you calling any of those socialist? I'm pretty sure that we've had this conversation before, but there are very few, very basic, unmmovable principles of socialism. If "collectivizing property" actually means killing off people and concentrating that property in the hands of a very few, leading to further inequality, I feel quite safe in saying these people were not real socialists.

They were certianly calling themselves socialist and were claiming to act on behalf of "the People". They were attempting to force people into their idea of socialism.

[Ormond]

When I say socialist means I'm talking about empowering government to force people to give up private property. To cap people's incomes at a certian level. To make private ownership of property illegal. I understand this is not what has happened in democratic socialist States. Hence, the distiction I'm trying to draw.

Look, to me it's just basically rude of you to be using the phrase "socialist means" with the above definition. To say that "democratic socialist" governments do NOT use "socialist means" is very odd and shows an extreme definition of the word socialism which can't stand up to the way the huge majority of people in the world use it. You're being pejorative about the word "socialist" from the start to assume that only the more extreme government actions are "socialist means."

[Datepalm]

They were certianly calling themselves socialist and were claiming to act on behalf of "the People". They were attempting to force people into their idea of socialism.

And the Congo calls itself a democracy. So?

Also, hands off the synchronized drumming!

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Ormond,

Look, to me it's just basically rude of you to be using the phrase "socialist means" with the above definition. To say that "democratic socialist" governments do NOT use "socialist means" is very odd and shows an extreme definition of the word socialism which can't stand up to the way the huge majority of people in the world use it. You're being pejorative about the word "socialist" from the start to assume that only the more extreme government actions are "socialist means."

Then I'm phrasing this poorly. I'm not attempting to be pejorative when I say "Socialist means". Perhaps a better phrasing would be "using force to impose Socialist ideals from above?"

DP,

Isn't that running into the "No true Christian" fallacy?