Communism and Politicial Identity Poll.

I'm neither liberal nor conservative. In the broader sense, I am a socialist, and more specifically, an anarcho-communist. So yes, I do think communism is a good idea, at least when combined with the other philosophies I believe in. Nearly everything that 20th century communism has been criticised for, rightly so in most cases, is antithetical to anarchism.

 

Also, where's the poll?

 

I'm a liberal green party to be exact. Throughout time I'd like to see a switch to a socialist government, but not a communist one. Do you really want to live in a country where the state owns the means of distribution?

 

I'm a liberal, plain and simple.

 

Rawlsian social democrat reformist.

and no I think the end stage of history communism that Marx proposes is 1. impossible and 2. if it were possible, completely unworkable.

 

Liberal.

I sympathise with the aims of communists, and I believe all healthy democracies ought to adopt aspects of socialism, but I'm no further left than plain liberalism, if I'm to be honest.

 

I'm an Objectivist. Anything that smacks of collectivism is to me anathema and to be summarily rejected. That's the idealistic me.

The "realist" (and cynical) me sees an entire planet's economic and political systems on such a completely self-destructive path that I'm glad I won't live long enough to see the fall, a fall that will make the fall of the Roman Empire seem like a little old ladies bridge club breaking up by comparison. (Apply for New Zealand citizenship soonest! :dry

 

what do you think about taxes

 

I'm a liberal, I'd say. I believe in a safety net, and equal opportunities.

As stated many times; Communism is good theory, but doesn't work well in practice. Wouldn't a world where everyone were equals be great? Yeah, but the world unfortunately doesn't work that way.

Karl Marx talked about the dictatorship of the proletariat (the stage between capitalism and communism), which is where communism fails. When the leaders get the taste for the power they possess through it, they have a hard time letting go of it. Communism doesn't result in equality, it results in a rich, powerful government and a poor population. Even if it did result in equality, what about individuals' freedom?

 

the dictatorship of the proletariat in orthodox Marxism doesn't have professional revolutionary leaders like that of Trotskyism or Leninism, so this isn't a criticism of Marx as much as it is a criticism of those who took up his ideas into practice.

I'm not saying I disagree that dictatorship of the proletariat isn't workable, but you aren't really characterizing Marx charitably.

as for freedom, for Marx that is acheived at the end point of history, so saying to a Marxist "oh yeah well what about my bourgeoisie concept of freedom!?" is a non-starter.

 

Also, I understand that 'dictatorship' had a slightly different meaning.

 

I'm a liberal, and probably a socialist. I like the idea of Communism, but I don't think it works well in practice.

 

That question begs another: what is the purpose of any tax? Answer: the redistribution of wealth, whether it be to distribute it to those deemed needy, force other people to tow the accepted political line, or to fill the pockets of the rulers. It's taking what belongs to me and arbitrarily deciding I don't need it. It's other people deciding for me what's best for me and everyone else, and I despise that as much as from any government as much as I do if it's from Microsoft.

I don't care whether it's Liberals wanting to spend it on "social programs" (i.e., grandiose, unrealistic social engineering) or Conservatives wanting to spend it enforcing laws that attempt to preserve their own narrow little views and inaccurate memories of history. To me, it's all the same.

A classic example of the true aim of taxes as spent on social engineering is LBJ's "Great Society" and the welfare state that it created. The welfare programs that came out of that "bleeding heart" b.s. had but one purpose: to re-enslave African-Americans. The welfare state destroyed the Black American family when its bureaucracy decided that a family, no matter how desperate, could not receive assistance if the father was living at home. So: "Bye bye, Dad." The sick, twisted politicians that came up with the system, no matter their public persona as "warm-hearted liberals", used welfare programs to prove that such evil things could be done, and they were done, and have forever stained this country's legacy. And if it can be done to African-Americans it can be done to anyone, anywhere.

I'm sure those more well-versed in politics than I could cite equally disparaging examples of the Conservatives use of taxes. I might mention the ridiculous amount of time and money spent on odious things like the "Defense of Marriage Act" and every state or community passing "anti-gay marriage" laws. (And thence, the time and money spent repealing them.)

So, in summary, I see the only legitimate use of taxes are to support the only legitimate purposes of government, which are: 1) the protection and promotion of civil rights, and 2) national defense. Anything else is theft.

 

Wasn't it like there need to be a dictatorship for a while, to get everything in order for the communism?

I haven't taken my meds today so please excuse any mix-ups and poor explanations. :redface:

 

it doesn't *beg* any questions, it raises another.

well, sort of. It's redistribution of capital to pay for services to all of society.

fucking what?

You benefit from services even if you don't actively use them. Roads, for example.

No. It isn't "other people", it is elected representitives of the people who decide how taxes are born out, so yeah.

False dichotomy

um. no. Not that I don't agree some government systems, for example the war of drugs disproportionately effect and harm young black men (see The New Jim Crow) but the welfare state isn't "enslaving" anyone.

citation needed

citation needed

sure.

so you aren't taking the Nozickean minarchist position and you do think the government has positive obligations to promote civil liberties?

Can you then, tax people for universal health care? by necessecity to exercise civil liberties, one must be alive, so at the most minimal, healthcare to prevent someone from dying? What about roadways and infrustructure to allow people to engage in free enterprise?
How is this theft if it is protecting and promoting civil rights?

also didn't you say earlier you thought conservatives allowing taxation in purpose of raising an army was illegitimate or did I misread you?

---------- Post added 8th Nov 2014 at 04:09 PM ----------

when Marx says Dictatorship of the proletariat he means mass democracy. This is expanded by people like Luxemborg where it is rule by the proletariat as a class, not the a vanguard Party like the Leninists took. It's taking political power away from the bourgeoisie, which is a minority, and for Marx is the only other place in which political power can reside.

no worries, a lot of people find Marx confusing because he's a shitty writer (if they've actually read him) or have preconcieved notions about his work based on real world occurances. I've spent a lot more time than I'd care to admit reading Marx, I'm by no means an expert but I know enough to explain the basic outline of his arguments and why I personally reject them.

 

I consider myself a socialist, but I'm not so in thrall to socialist ideas that I refuse to see reason. I think you can take a pragmatic approach without betraying fundamental principles and ideas.

 

Well, things sure went downhill from there, so why don't we just agree to disagree?

You and I will never see eye to eye on this, and it's obvious we are both set in our ideas. We expressed our views and that's all I care to do with them here. I am not a debater, and this sort of thing is just so very tiring. I have little time and energy to expend on yet another one of these nauseating types of threads. (Oh, don't forget to correct my use of the word 'nauseating' while you're at it. :eusa_clap)

 

You've got no idea how much it bugs me when people saying "begs the question" when not refernecing actual question begging.

I'm just trying to have a conversation with you about your political ideology.

just another objectivist libertarian whose ideology can't withstand even the slightest scruntiny