Union of Soviet Socialist Ran's Board Threads

[Gorn]

DG,

Objecting to using force to eliminate private property ownership is splitting hairs?

Wow, you're really beating the shit out of that poor strawman. Eliminating private property is an utopian socialist idea, just like abolishing the government and privatizing the road network is an utopian libertarian idea. Neither of them has any relation to the real world, other than as a thought exercise.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

KAH,

If you are going to be using tolls and fees for everything, you might as well abolish 99% of the government leaving only a small regulatory body, because aside from that it then fills no function that private firms could not do.

I prefer a smaller government.

Just because it is the law does not automatically make it right, which I believe is the very fundament of the thread you started, no?

I like to stay out of jail. But that's just me. :)

Gorn,

Wow, you're really beating the shit out of that poor strawman. Eliminating private property is an utopian socialist idea, just like abolishing the government and privatizing the road network is an utopian libertarian idea. Neither of them has any relation to the real world, other than as a thought exercise.

Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot have all attempted what you call a strawman in the name of Socialist ideals. Hence the thread.

[Datepalm]

The ends the imposers are pushing. Equalizing society and eliminating private ownership of property and putting the means of production in the hands of the "People" by extension "The Government". Those aren't socialist prinicipals?

Not really, no. Equalizing society is a principle. The rest are your socialist means. Sometimes they're appropriate, sometimes they aren't. I don't know thagt i'd use them today. The USSR collectivized land when it was coming out of a fucking monarchy, only 70 odd years away from actual serfdom. The upper classes really were the landed classes. Today I might...oh, make it illegal for any one person or corporation to own more than one media outlet. Or make political donations illegal. Or higher education free (In the USA, I mean. I'm pretty sure the latter two are reality plenty of places.) Or nepotism punishable by death.

Anyway, I already said it upthread - my means would be education and democracy.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

DP,

"Socialist means" was poor phrasing on my part, I struck through and edited to clarify. What I mean is extreme socialism where private property is banned by Government without people agreeing to end private ownership of property.

Soct, I understand what you're saying as I'm aware of some of the comments made in other threads that inspired this. But I don't believe most accepted definitions of "socialism" include abolition of private property altogether. Generally, it's limited to abolition of private ownerships and/or direction of the means of production, which is a different thing entirely. I would agree that if you define abolition of private property as a "socialist end", you inevitably will have violence and repression unless there is unanimous consent to that change. But I don't think that properly qualifies as a "socialist" end.

[Gorn]

Gorn,

Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot have all attempted what you call a strawman in the name of Socialist ideals. Hence the thread.

Abolishing private ownership of means of production and abolishing all private property are two entirely different things.

[WhiteHaven]

But whats wrong with taking from the ultra-rich (think Donald Trump, that loaded jerk) and giving to the semi-poor, not quite middle-class (think me)? And has anyone here met your typical East European oligarch? Its really not a pretty sight. In my opinion, those rich people deserve to be ripped off by the right kind of government. So I say let the red banners fly and red cavalry ride and let us, the glorious proletariat, rise.

Nothings wrong with that. Suprisingly, however, lots of poor people tend to hate the idea, although they think that it is not fair that some have lots of money, and the majority little. Talk about the IQ of human beings.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

DP,

Not really, no. Equalizing society is a principle. The rest are your socialist means. Sometimes they're appropriate, sometimes they aren't. I don't know thagt i'd use them today. The USSR collectivized land when it was coming out of a fucking monarchy, only 70 odd years away from actual serfdom. The upper classes really were the landed classes. Today I might...oh, make it illegal for any one person or corporation to own more than one media outlet. Or make political donations illegal. Or higher education free (In the USA, I mean. I'm pretty sure the latter two are reality plenty of places.) Or nepotism punishable by death.

Yes. Lenin actually attempted to use private ownership of property to grow the new Soviet Union after the first effort at collectivization failed. Then Stalin branded the newly land owning "Kulaks" enemies of the State and had them liquidated.

Anyway, I already said it upthread - my means would be education and democracy.

If people vote to eliminate private ownership of property and some refuse to give up their property what should follow for the refusniks?

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Gorn,

Abolishing private ownership of means of production and abolishing all private property are two entirely different things.

I'm not sure I understand you're point. You aren't saying the actions of Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot in abolishing the private ownership of the means of production were justified, are you? Or are you saying their efforts to eliminate all private ownership were not actions that furthered socialist ideals?

[KAH]

I prefer a smaller government.

So...the argument concerns what works best, then - small or big government.

Which is fair enough. As long as you realize that has nothing to do with what the government will have a right to do. Level of taxation, land taxes, 'death' taxes, head taxes...those are simply a question of finetuning of what is considered the most utilitarian, once you accept the fact that the government has a right to impose any form of taxation at all.

[Datepalm]

If people vote to eliminate private ownership of property and some refuse to give up their property what should follow for the refusniks?

Synchronized drumming.

Seriously, its inherent. There isn't even the usual ends and means debate. They'd simply be breaking the law under any definition of democracy i've ever heard. Arrest, trial, sentence, etc.

[Galactus]

If people vote to eliminate private ownership of property and some refuse to give up their property what should follow for the refusniks?

If people voted to make killing people illegal and some people kept doing it what would happen to the murderers?

[Thor85]

DP,

If people vote to eliminate private ownership of property and some refuse to give up their property what should follow for the refusniks?

They should be taxed very heavily for that property until they see the light of glorious communism and give it up. After that why would anyone even want to live in a huge mansion when you need to pay a fortune in taxes on it. Communism is great that way :thumbsup: .

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

KAH, DP, Galactus,

So...the argument concerns what works best, then - small or big government.

Which is fair enough. As long as you realize that has nothing to do with what the government will have a right to do. Level of taxation, land taxes, 'death' taxes, head taxes...those are simply a question of finetuning of what is considered the most utilitarian, once you accept the fact that the government has a right to impose any form of taxation at all.

Synchronized drumming.

Seriously, its inherent. There isn't even the usual ends and means debate. They'd simply be breaking the law under any definition of democracy i've ever heard. Arrest, trial, sentence, etc.

If people voted to make killing people illegal and some people kept doing it what would happen to the murderers?

I see your point. I suppose it will be synchronized drumming for me and those who think like me someday.

[Galactus]

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.

The ONLY laws that I'd argue you are not bound by (and thus justify violent resistance) are laws that disenfranchise you (such as taking away your life, or your right to vote, or express yourself) and thus prevent you from later on repealing any other odious laws.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Galactus,

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.

The ONLY laws that I'd argue you are not bound by (and thus justify violent resistance) are laws that disenfranchise you (such as taking away your life, or your right to vote, or express yourself) and thus prevent you from later on repealing any other odious laws.

Nevermind dumb question you've already addressed it.

[Datepalm]

I see your point. I suppose it will be synchronized drumming for me and those who think like me someday.

So youre neither a socialist nor a democrat?

Oh well, I suppose you've got christianity to fall back on. Thats nice.

[KAH]

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.

The ONLY laws that I'd argue you are not bound by (and thus justify violent resistance) are laws that disenfranchise you (such as taking away your life, or your right to vote, or express yourself) and thus prevent you from later on repealing any other odious laws.

Does Margaret Thatcher's poll tax count as disenfranchising?

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

DP,

So youre neither a socialist nor a democrat?

Oh well, I suppose you've got christianity to fall back on. Thats nice.

I think there are some things that simply shouldn't be up to "the people" to determine. For an extreme example, if a Constitutional Amendment were passed that said all children were to be removed from their parents homes and raised by the State I'd be voting with my feet. What's hard about private property is that voting with your feet, if it were abolished Constitutionally, is simply conceding.

[Gorn]

Gorn,

I'm not sure I understand you're point. You aren't saying the actions of Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot in abolishing the private ownership of the means of production were justified, are you? Or are you saying their efforts to eliminate all private ownership were not actions that furthered socialist ideals?

I'm not saying that their actions were justified, and don't know how you concluded that from my post. I'm saying that they never really tried to abolish all private property (well, at least Stalin and Mao didn't, I don't know much about Pol Pot). Large scale abolition of private property never happened in real life, to the best of my knowledge. It would require abolishing the currency, for one thing, which is an utopian idea. Even in communist countries, you still went to a store and gave your money to a clerk, and in return you received goods, which from that point became your goods.

[Datepalm]

DP,

I think there are some things that simply shouldn't be up to "the people" to determine. For an extreme example, if a Constitutional Amendment were passed that said all children were to be removed from their parents homes and raised by the State I'd be voting with my feet. What's hard about private property is that voting with your feet, if it were abolished Constitutionally, is simply conceding.

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.)