Are liberals allies to socialism?

[Questerr]

Is either a country? My question was very specific

Yes. Both are.

 

[vegas giants]

Yes. Both are.

It is your claim both are independent countries?


Dude just argue honestly

 

[Questerr]

Getting rid of the capitalists is an experiment has been done, repeatedly. People like you get into power and murder all of the business owners. The results, shall we say, have not been pretty.



How are you going to make that happen? What happens to the tens millions of people who don't want to work in one of your shitty "cooperatives"? I think we all know the answer to that question.



Because it's a stupid question. Why not ask if a capitalist owns the entire world, on what is his claim of ownership based?

Not in a democratic context. No capitalists need to be killed. Simply have society cease to recognize their coercive power. If society stops enforcing their pieces of paper that they use to claim ownership over things, what recourse do they have? Coercive violence? Isn’t that something you are supposedly opposed to?

Why would people want to work for a company that strips away the value of their labor and gives it to someone else rather than keeping it for themselves?

Why is it a stupid question? Is it because you don’t want to address the fact that the answer to the question is “coercion”, making your system which is supposedly about avoiding coercion actually entirely based on coercion?

 

[Questerr]

It is your claim both are independent countries?


Dude just argue honestly

Now you add goalpost changing qualifiers.

 

[vegas giants]

Now you add goalpost changing qualifiers.

C o u n t r y
See the original question

Here is the honest answer you should have given


Well it doesn't exist at the national level yet but I believe it's an idea who's time has come and I hope it can be adopted nationally soon


But you can't answer honestly

 

[Questerr]

In Capitalism, the basis for capitalist claims of ownership are pieces of paper(“deeds”) that essentially say “I own this thing and if you use this thing without my permission, I or a proxy working for me will use violence against you”.

That’s coercion at the core of capitalism.

 

[Questerr]

C o u n t r y
See the original question

Here is the honest answer you should have given


Well it doesn't exist at the national level yet but I believe it's an idea who's time has come and I hope it can be adopted nationally soon


But you can't answer honestly

You do know there’s a difference between a country and a nation, right?

Palestine is a country, it is not a nation.

The problem was with your question not my answer.

 

[aociswundumho]

Our elections aren’t even remotely close to free. I don’t know why you are using them as an example.

What's not free about them?

If someone wants to murder someone, they are going to find a way to murder them.

That's correct.

Does that mean we shouldn’t have laws against murder?

No, because the number of people who commit murder is extremely tiny:

If you assume that all murderers kill only one person, the percentage would be approximately 1 in 22,250 or about 0.000048 percent. So that puts our upper limit at 48 in a million for 2011.

Your system with everyone constantly voting about everything is going to be loaded with politicians. You are not going to stop them from trading money or blocks of votes for political favors.

Well, I guess in your system, anyone would be able to murder anyone they wanted so long as they pay the market’s asking price for it.

In other words, no different from the way it is now.

Or campaigns are subsidized by society and everyone gets the same amount, making personal wealth meaningless and thereby getting money out of politics.

So every person in the country gets free money? That means the amount is going to be tiny, hence it will benefit the rich.

Incumbents would answer to the will of the population. If they tried mucking with the rules, they would be subject to a popular veto and instantaneous recall.

Um, they get to make the rules, remember? That's their job.

You are also forgetting that Maximal Democracy also means having as many decisions made by direct democratic vote as possible. Changes to the electoral system would definitely fall in that category.

Which means everyone will be constantly voting. We have incredibly low turn out rates now with people only having to vote every couple of years.

 

[vegas giants]

You do know there’s a difference between a country and a nation, right?

Palestine is a country, it is not a nation.

The problem was with your question not my answer.

Dude why play games? I know why


Because your argument is not sound and you don't want to lose a silly debate


You could have said.


It hasn't been done yet on the national level but it has been done successfully in smaller societies


That's called honesty

 

[PeacefulWarrior]

"Scratch a liberal and a fascist bleeds"

A saying thrown around by some leftists. Generally used either to deride liberals for not taking fascism seriously enough thereby allowing them to take power, or to imply that liberals still hold some fascistic beliefs (maybe being pro cop, or pro US international corporate imperialism).

Socialists and liberals have, historically, had a fairly confrontational relationship. The example most frequently used is Rosa Luxembourg and the socialists who were rounded up, arrested, or killed after allying with the social democrats to overthrow the German Empire.

But just because there are some bad historical examples, does that mean liberals are inherently enemies to socialism? I don't think so. Liberalism as a philosophy was built on the ideas of the enlightenment. Democracy, equality under the law, social justice, etc. Since virtually all socialist theory is built on top of the same enlightenment values, socialists and liberals almost always at least share the same value system. That is to say our ethical frameworks for how we view the world are similar. For example, if I am arguing for socialism with a conservative, often there is almost no way I can reach them. The argument that "we can create a more equal and fair society" fails at ground 0 against someone who isn't interested in making society equal. Whereas arguments about socialism with liberals usually boils down to liberal not believing socialism can actually create a more equal society, not that the pursuit of such a society is inherently bad.

For liberals, and especially progressive social democrats, the barrier between being socialist is generally just that they believe socialism is unfeasible, not that its goals are bad. You'll hear arguments like, "the ideals are nice but it would never work" or "well regulated capitalism with a welfare state is the best system".

So, can liberals be potential allies to building socialism? I think so. They are the largest political block and their ethical values are more aligned with socialist ones than other political groups. I think leftists should spend more time answering questions liberals have about how socialism would work and doing outreach instead of assuming they are a lost cause (the most common belief in my experience). If you want to have enough people in your political movement you need to convince wine moms and soccer dads.

Albert Einstein & I are strong proponents for Socialism.
Man is a social animal. Socialism is his preferred socioeconomic system.

 

[aociswundumho]

Not in a democratic context. No capitalists need to be killed. Simply have society cease to recognize their coercive power. If society stops enforcing their pieces of paper that they use to claim ownership over things, what recourse do they have? Coercive violence? Isn’t that something you are supposedly opposed to?

Don't need pieces of paper. Consider the drug war, where the government attempts to arrest capitalists for selling certain politically-incorrect drugs to other people who wish to buy them. You can't even stop illegal drugs from being bought and sold in highly controlled environments like schools and prisons, and you want this model for the entire economy?

And yes, you will have to kill them, because the country you created is already a prison.

Why would people want to work for a company that strips away the value of their labor and gives it to someone else rather than keeping it for themselves?

Why is it a stupid question? Is it because you don’t want to address the fact that the answer to the question is “coercion”, making your system which is supposedly about avoiding coercion actually entirely based on coercion?

 

[Questerr]

What's not free about them?



That's correct.



No, because the number of people who commit murder is extremely tiny:



Your system with everyone constantly voting about everything is going to be loaded with politicians. You are not going to stop them from trading money or blocks of votes for political favors.



In other words, no different from the way it is now.



So every person in the country gets free money? That means the amount is going to be tiny, hence it will benefit the rich.



Um, they get to make the rules, remember? That's their job.


Which means everyone will be constantly voting. We have incredibly low turn out rates now with people only having to vote every couple of years.

They are entirely locked behind paywalls. It takes money to run, it takes money to vote.

And the number of people of actively violate campaign finance laws is tiny.

Really? I can freely pay to have someone killed without violating any laws like under your system? How much does it cost?

Every person in the country runs in every election? Who is claiming that?

How many decisions do you think need to be made on a daily basis for a given community that are of actual import?

You realize corporate board/shareholders can do the exact same thing. Are they constantly having votes?

The reason we have such low voter turnout is because most people feel they have no actual voice in our system and it’s strangers by the two party grip on politics. Look at other democratic countries, especially ones with more democracy than us. They have far higher voter turnouts.

 

[Questerr]

Don't need pieces of paper. Consider the drug war, where the government attempts to arrest capitalists for selling certain politically-incorrect drugs to other people who wish to buy them. You can't even stop illegal drugs from being bought and sold in highly controlled environments like schools and prisons, and you want this model for the entire economy?

And yes, you will have to kill them, because the country you created is already a prison.

So to be clear, you want a free market that is as violent as drug cartels fighting over their property and profits?

You want every corporation to have to engage in the same practices that drug cartels use to keep their power over their competition?

 

[Questerr]

Dude why play games? I know why


Because your argument is not sound and you don't want to lose a silly debate


You could have said.


It hasn't been done yet on the national level but it has been done successfully in smaller societies


That's called honesty

You didn’t ask about nations, did you?

 

[braindrain]

I guess the way I see it is you can remove as lot of those problems by not having firms controlled by just a few individuals. We came to the conclusion that kings and autocrats generally don't make as good decisions for society as a democracy does when it comes to our government. Why does that not extend to corporations too? Why should the decisions of a company like Walmart, the single largest employer in the US, be made by a few people? Walmart will come into a small town, put everything else out of business, and then pay people shit wages for the privilege of working at the last employer left within 50 miles. Would the people that live in those towns allow that to happen if they weren't powerless?

You do know that generally speaking Walmart pays better wages than mom and pop stores right?

Kind of makes your ideas hard to take seriously when you don’t get the basics right.

 

[HK.227]

Are liberals allies to socialism?

Of course not.
"Liberal" comes from the Latin "libertas" which means freedom, whereas Socialism is based on coercion, whether politically, ideologically, or through the use of force.
Sometimes Liberals will be seduced into it, and hink they are still Liberals, but they are not. The term just becomes a meaningless label.
(Here going on the assumption that OP meant upper case "Liberal", as in an adherent of the political framework of Liberalism, and not "liberal" from the lower case adjective, which can mean just about anything.)

 

[Questerr]

Albert Einstein & I are strong proponents for Socialism.
Man is a social animal. Socialism is his preferred socioeconomic system.

View attachment 67438858

What does socialism say about white supremacy?

 

[vegas giants]

You didn’t ask about nations, did you?

How silly. You can't even debate honestly.

You are EXACTLY like aociswundumho.


Exactly


An extremist who will push any tactic possible to push his ideology ......honesty be damned

 

[Questerr]

Don't need pieces of paper. Consider the drug war, where the government attempts to arrest capitalists for selling certain politically-incorrect drugs to other people who wish to buy them. You can't even stop illegal drugs from being bought and sold in highly controlled environments like schools and prisons, and you want this model for the entire economy?

And yes, you will have to kill them, because the country you created is already a prison.

Also, you realize drug cartels are exactly what the kind of situation where capitalists use coercive violence to enforce their claims to private property in the absence of enforced deeds, yes?

Is coercive violence a valid means of proclaiming ownership and working in a market?

 

[Questerr]

How silly. You can't even debate honestly.

You are EXACTLY like aociswundumho.


Exactly


An extremist who will push any tactic possible to push his ideology ......honesty be damned

I answered your question honestly. Don’t be butthurt because you didn’t ask the right question.

 

[aociswundumho]

How many decisions do you think need to be made on a daily basis for a given community that are of actual import?

Thousands. Running any business requires you to make decisions constantly. As we sit here and write I'm designing a new, high-end kitchen, and there are dozens of decisions I have to make, and it's not easy, because every decision involves trade-offs. You want an entire economy where all decisions are made democratically, but that's impossible. You're going to end up with a hierarchy, just like every socialist society, and you're going to have to imprison or murder anyone who doesn't go along with your plan, just like in any socialist society.

So to be clear, you want a free market that is as violent as drug cartels fighting over their property and profits?

You want every corporation to have to engage in the same practices that drug cartels use to keep their power over their competition?

Drug cartels exist because of government prohibition laws. In NYC, there is somewhat of a free market in weed, and it's all small producers.

A Laissez-Faire Drug Market in the Most Unlikely Place Ever

Everyone on the political left hates laissez-faire, as do most moderates, and even many Republicans. Nearly everyone wants stupid, corrupt politicians to control the economy via government regulation. Here are some examples from this forum: We cannot continue to afford a laissez-faire...

debatepolitics.com

And corporations are a fiction created by the state in order to protect wealthy people from liability.

 

[vegas giants]

I answered your question honestly. Don’t be butthurt because you didn’t ask the right question.

coun·try
/ˈkəntrē/
See definitions in:
All
Politics
Popular Music
noun
1.
a nation with its own government, occupying a particular territory.
"the country's increasingly precarious economic position"
Similar:
state
nation
sovereign state
kingdom
realm
territory
province
principality
palatinate
duchy
empire
commonwealth
homeland
native land
native soil
fatherland
motherland
mother country
country of origin
birthplace
the land of one's birth
the land of one's fathers
the old country
one's roots
one's home
2.
districts and small settlements outside large towns, cities, or the capital.
"the airfield is right out in the country"
Similar:
countryside
green belt



You are dismissed for lack of honesty

 

[Questerr]

Thousands. Running any business requires you to make decisions constantly. As we sit here and write I'm designing a new, high-end kitchen, and there are dozens of decisions I have to make, and it's not easy, because every decision involves trade-offs. You want an entire economy where all decisions are made democratically, but that's impossible. You're going to end up with a hierarchy, just like every socialist society, and you're going to have to imprison or murder anyone who doesn't go along with your plan, just like in any socialist society.



Drug cartels exist because of government prohibition laws. In NYC, there is somewhat of a free market in weed, and it's all small producers.

A Laissez-Faire Drug Market in the Most Unlikely Place Ever

Everyone on the political left hates laissez-faire, as do most moderates, and even many Republicans. Nearly everyone wants stupid, corrupt politicians to control the economy via government regulation. Here are some examples from this forum: We cannot continue to afford a laissez-faire...

debatepolitics.com

And corporations are a fiction created by the state in order to protect wealthy people from liability.

Most of those decisions are incredibly minor, easily handled by individuals directly involved or by elected managers.

If there was no system enforcing cartel claims of property ownership beyond their own guns or the guns of hired mercenaries, literally nothing would change. It would still be just as violent. Government’s backing capitalist claims of ownership just makes the government into the hired mercenaries.

Capitalism is based at its core on coercive violence.

Do you think wealthy people will just throw up their hands in the absence of government and say “well I guess I have to be liable now and lose my privilege”, or do you think they will just create new governments they control and enforce, a la a new form of feudalism?

 

[Questerr]

coun·try
/ˈkəntrē/
See definitions in:
All
Politics
Popular Music
noun
1.
a nation with its own government, occupying a particular territory.
"the country's increasingly precarious economic position"
Similar:
state
nation
sovereign state
kingdom
realm
territory
province
principality
palatinate
duchy
empire
commonwealth
homeland
native land
native soil
fatherland
motherland
mother country
country of origin
birthplace
the land of one's birth
the land of one's fathers
the old country
one's roots
one's home
2.
districts and small settlements outside large towns, cities, or the capital.
"the airfield is right out in the country"
Similar:
countryside
green belt



You are dismissed for lack of honesty

Palestine is a country, but it is not a nation. The two terms are not interchangeable.

I notice you aren’t referencing a dictionary specifically for political science or international relations, but instead for purely colloquial use.

 

[vegas giants]

Palestine is a country, but it is not a nation. The two terms are not interchangeable.

I notice you aren’t referencing a dictionary specifically for political science or international relations, but instead for purely colloquial use.

I gave you the definition but you still want to play games


Because your argument is so weak


It is dismissed


Extremists never win