Jump to content

Union of Soviet Socialist Ran's Board Threads


Ser Scot A Ellison

Recommended Posts

DP,

Now we finally come down to it.

What is so inherently moral about private means of production that you would turn outlaw for it? (I'm not going to argue with your "all private property" strawman, since no governemnt (maybe North Korea?)has ever actually done it and no one in this thread is arguing for it. It has actually been done by Kibbutzim - yes, the collective child raising thing too - and theres interesting lessons to be learned there.)

I think NK and Khmer Rouge Cambodia tried abolition of private property. As to your question, before I answer may I ask this clarifying question, does the private means of production also include farms?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think NK and Khmer Rouge Cambodia tryed abolition of private property. As to your question, before I answer may I ask this clarifying question, does the private means of production also include farms?

Where? When? This is means were talking, not ends, so context is crucial.

In a primarily agricultural society where ownership of land is controlled by a tiny nobility and everyone else is employed or enslaved by them, sure. In the USA where its giant agrobusiness concerns, also. In urban jerusalem where some people grow mint or pomegranates or olives in their back yard to sell in the market, i'm probably going to be more forgiving.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

DP,

Where? When? This is means were talking, not ends, so context is crucial.

In a primarily agricultural society where ownership of land is controlled by a tiny nobility and everyone else is employed or enslaved by them, sure. In the USA where its giant agrobusiness concerns, also. In urban jerusalem where some people grow mint or pomegranates or olives in their back yard to sell in the market, i'm probably going to be more forgiving.

What about small (a few hundred acres) privately (non-corporately) owned farms? I'm not saying they are the majority of agraculture in the U.S. That said they are a recognizable percentage of production.

Additionally, I have friends who are growing very large gardens (several acres in size). They are sincerely attempting to go "off-grid". So far that they are looking into buying a small hydropower generator that can run off the stream on their property. They do not want to participate in the economy. Would this be considered "means of production" that must be owned by the People, and by extension the Government?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does Margaret Thatcher's poll tax count as disenfranchising?

That's an interesting point.

My first reaction was that the use of the Electoral Register in compiling lists of those obliged to pay created a barrier to voting and was thus clearly disenfranchising.

But there is an argument that the obligation to pay existed without reference to the Electoral Register which was being used merely as an identifier of those in violation, so what effectively disenfranchised the elector was her or his choice to attempt to avoid the consequences of easily identified non-compliance.

In short, it was not in fact a direct impediment to voting.

That said, or at least written, I think that exercising one's ability to vote shouldn't entail increased apprehension of punishment on an unrelated matter, so disenfranchising by my understanding of the term.

Either way I never actually paid it.

PS Mod type person where the hell is the commie emoticon. :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But there is an argument that the obligation to pay existed without reference to the Electoral Register which was being used merely as an identifier of those in violation, so what effectively disenfranchised the elector was her or his choice to attempt to avoid the consequences of easily identified non-compliance.

In short, it was not in fact a direct impediment to voting.

That said, or at least written, I think that exercising one's ability to vote shouldn't entail increased apprehension of punishment on an unrelated matter, so disenfranchising by my understanding of the term.

Actually, the link to voting was accidental, that was not my main point.

Let's say it's not linked to voting, just that you have enough income to actually pay the tax. You're accorded a bare (very low) minimum X dollars that you're supposed to get by on, above that your income goes to meet a head tax demand of Y dollars that is equal for everyone. Any amount of income above X+Y is not taxed.

By Galactus' definition, this is not disenfranchising, as long as the majority has voted in favour of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What about small (a few hundred acres) privately (non-corporately) owned farms? I'm not saying they are the majority of agraculture in the U.S. That said they are a recognizable percentage of production.

Additionally, I have friends who are growing very large gardens (several acres in size). They are sincerely attempting to go "off-grid". So far that they are looking into buying a small hydropower generator that can run off the stream on their property. They do not want to participate in the economy. Would this be considered "means of production" that must be owned by the People, and by extension the Government?

Are they making an obscene profit from it? Are they employing others? Is their farm really different from the garage workshop of a self employed carpenter? I don't know, and more importantly, I don't know that taking their farm will further social equality. Which is why banning "private ownership of means of production", just like that, is probably not the thing any socialist would do as a first step when coming to power today. You're arguing with bizzaro nostalgia socialism.

However, most farms are not owned by families, and most workers are not self employed, so whats so great about privately owned means of production?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

oh that is true, but communism is more than just the lack of private property.

To use the wiki definiton:

"Pure communism" in the Marxian sense refers to a classless, stateless and oppression-free society where decisions on what to produce and what policies to pursue are made democratically, allowing every member of society to participate in the decision-making process in both the political and economic spheres of life."

Socialism on the other hand is in many ways meant to resemble a regular western society, just that the store you work in, the farm you run, the bicycle factory you lead all belong to the state. It's not such a difficult thing to imagine, at least not for me as we've got plenty of state run companies here in Norway. Hospitals, schools, parts of the oil industry, parts of the energy industry and so on.

@Scot obviously

Link to comment
Share on other sites

More generally, I think that part of the democratic contract is that you are bound by the laws you create. YOu, as a part of the polity, creat ethe laws. Therefore you are bound by them. If you don't like them you can always try again the next time.

Personally, there's definitely a point for me where I'd support violent resistence. Certainly it would be if private ownership of the means of production was outlawed. And there's likely a point of taxation where I'd support that as well. Exactly what point, I can't say, but it would obviously depend on the willingness of others to take up arms as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, the link to voting was accidental, that was not my main point.

Let's say it's not linked to voting, just that you have enough income to actually pay the tax. You're accorded a bare (very low) minimum X dollars that you're supposed to get by on, above that your income goes to meet a head tax demand of Y dollars that is equal for everyone. Any amount of income above X+Y is not taxed.

By Galactus' definition, this is not disenfranchising, as long as the majority has voted in favour of it.

Note: I don't think something has to be disenfranchising to be WRONG. It's just that it doesen't become sufficiently wrong to redress with violence (as opposed to by legal means) until it becomes disenfranchising.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Note: I don't think something has to be disenfranchising to be WRONG. It's just that it doesen't become sufficiently wrong to redress with violence (as opposed to by legal means) until it becomes disenfranchising.

But head taxes do not suffice as 'sufficiently wrong', did I understand you correctly? As long as you have option to vote against it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

DP,

Are they making an obscene profit from it? Are they employing others? Is their farm really different from the garage workshop of a self employed carpenter? I don't know, and more importantly, I don't know that taking their farm will further social equality. Which is why banning "private ownership of means of production", just like that, is probably not the thing any socialist would do as a first step when coming to power today. You're arguing with bizzaro nostalgia socialism.

However, most farms are not owned by families, and most workers are not self employed, so whats so great about privately owned means of production?

Define "obscene profit". They aren't employing others. They intend to have enough to feed their family and maybe some surplus to barter with. If what you are saying is that people could opt out of a socialist system in this fashion, I wouldn't have a problem with it.

What I worry about is that if such a movement were to grow would it be seen as a threat to the existing power structure and would "the People" and by extension "the Government" take steps to shut such refusniks down?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

KAH, Assuming no link to the ability to vote then even a more extreme version of your scenario isn't disenfranchising.

Provided I can vote and proselytize from jail that the state takes my entire income and then arrests me for failure to pay the rest of my democratically imposed obligation I have not been disenfranchised. Galactus would not yet if I understand him correctly feel that the state had abused me to the point of justifying armed resistance.

I however am old and cranky - I'm tempted to raise the flag of rebellion when the council fails to collect the rubbish promptly.

Edit: See his post for what he actually thinks rather than what I thought he might have thought.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But head taxes do not suffice as 'sufficiently wrong', did I understand you correctly? As long as you have option to vote against it?

Depends on how it works, and how large the head-tax is, etc. It could, certainly, qualify as disenfranchising.

EDIT: Correct about the campaigning-from-jail thing. (Eugene Debs for President!)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Define "obscene profit". They aren't employing others. They intend to have enough to feed their family and maybe some surplus to barter with. If what you are saying is that people could opt out of a socialist system in this fashion, I wouldn't have a problem with it.

What I worry about is that if such a movement were to grow would it be seen as a threat to the existing power structure and would "the People" and by extension "the Government" take steps to shut such refusniks down?

Oy, comrade, what are you going on about? You're arguing with a hypothetical i've disavowed.

As to your friends, I salute their willingness to opt out of the monetized capitalist economy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Depends on how it works, and how large the head-tax is, etc. It could, certainly, qualify as disenfranchising.

EDIT: Correct about the campaigning-from-jail thing. (Eugene Debs for President!)

So as long as you can vote to change it (even from jail), that's what matters?

In the example I provided, you're allowed a certain minimum income, everything above that is going to meet the head tax until it's paid off in it's entirety.

So it's in essence a super-regressive tax, but it's (probably) not going to kill you, even if you're poor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

DP,

Oy, comrade, what are you going on about? You're arguing with a hypothetical i've disavowed.

As to your friends, I salute their willingness to opt out of the monetized capitalist economy.

I'm wondering what happens if opting out of the economy becomes a fad. As people opt out there will be less to spread around via taxation and other means. As such would the socialized government be tempted to go Kulak on the people who have opted out?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So as long as you can vote to change it (even from jail), that's what matters?

In the example I provided, you're allowed a certain minimum income, everything above that is going to meet the head tax until it's paid off in it's entirety.

So it's in essence a super-regressive tax, but it's (probably) not going to kill you, even if you're poor.

Then that would be wrong, but not sufficient cause for bringing out the guillouitines.

I'm wondering what happens if opting out of the economy becomes a fad. As people opt out there will be less to spread around via taxation and other means. As such would the socialized government be tempted to go Kulak on the people who have opted out?

Alas, just opting out does not work that way. As long as you're living on the territory of a particular state at any rate. (YOu can always move)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

DP,

I'm wondering what happens if opting out of the economy becomes a fad. As people opt out there will be less to spread around via taxation and other means. As such would the socialized government be tempted to go Kulak on the people who have opted out?

I just wish we'd give the states a lot more power, and the feds a lot less, so that if some states wanted to go fully socialist, they'd be free to do so without forcing the rest of us to get involved. And if other states wanted to move to more of a free market system, they could do the same. Of course, even now, socialists are free to set up little communes or kibbutz of their own if they wanted to do so, and that still occasionally happens.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...