|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:What are you even talking about? Most US states don't even ban felons from voting, many countries and some states don't ban you from voting from prison. disenfranchising criminals is not some steady truth that has to exist so much that you can't get rid of it in your socialist authoritarian nightmare if it's not even a universal truth right now. suppression of ideologies deemed hostile to the regime is a constant, OOCC. the only question is what mechanisms the government- and hopefully the populace- finds most acceptable to handle them. at the moment, the US uses all three of killing them, jailing them, and depriving them of the franchise. in deference to the population, the killings are murders the police do not investigate, the jailing is for being the wrong color while smoking marijuana, and the depriving them of the franchise is a way to make option B slightly cheaper. if you have more humane methods in mind, I'd certainly like to hear about them! fair warning, the history of socialist regimes that forego them at all features an AWFUL lot of "and then they were shot by someone on the American payroll."
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2018 19:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 09:01 |
|
|
Infernot posted:I mean anyone today can argue that we live in a fair society, or that what you get paid at work is fair, or that X Y and Z are fair. To say that socialism will be more fair is a pretty empty term, but not only that I think the goal of trying to make stuff fair or equal misses the whole point of why capitalism is poo poo. Capitalists don't accrue vast amounts of wealth because of them being unfair, but because capitalism naturally tends towards monopolies and bigger capitalists running smaller ones out of business. To have your goal be to make something fair in this regard, which some might say redistributing the wealth or thinking of socialism as capitalism but more fair, your end goal seeks to fix the problems of capitalism but not end it. Abolition the proletariat and the bourgeoisie as a class does have something to do with equality, but only in the fact that there's no class distinction. People will still be unequal in ability and possessions, and this isn't a right-wing talking point but something Marx talked about. I just think making ethics a core part of your idea of socialism turns into just moralizing to people and I don't know if you've ever tried to change someone's mind by making a moral argument but it almost never works in my experience. I think I understand what you mean and I’m not 100% convinced but I’m phone posting. So I concede that your ideas have merit and I’ll think about it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2018 19:22
|
|
|
Yeowch!!! My Balls!!! posted:suppression of ideologies deemed hostile to the regime is a constant No it's actually not.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2018 19:26
|
|
|
When presented with "socialism or barbarism", the idea that 100% of people will choose socialism is just plain wrong. We have objective evidence that a good segment of the populace would sooner live in a Mad Max hellworld than see BIPOC folks put on equal footing. That doesn't make "socialism or barbarism" incorrect, just that we need to apply a moral and ethical component to say that socialism is preferable to barbarism because that's where we're at as a society.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2018 19:28
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:No it's actually not. what's the regime you claim not to have done it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2018 19:29
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:I think I understand what you mean and I’m not 100% convinced but I’m phone posting. So I concede that your ideas have merit and I’ll think about it. https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/ch01.htm Marx puts it in a much much better way here, which is where I got these ideas partly from. The specific section that's relevant starts with " "Promotion of the instruments of labor to the common property" ought obviously..."
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2018 19:31
|
|
|
enki42 posted:Thought experiment for everyone in this thread. I don't think it's necessarily ethically wrong, but it's definitely systemically dangerous. By going forward with that change they are reintroducing capitalism into their economy, which with it reintroduces the dangers associated with capitalism. Proposing it should be permitted because people in a democratic society should be allowed to propose bad ideas, but those ideas should also be shot down.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2018 19:40
|
|
|
Yeowch!!! My Balls!!! posted:what's the regime you claim not to have done it. name how that makes something morally correct.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2018 19:41
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:name how that makes something morally correct. Didn't say it was moral. Said it was a constant. A fundamental attribute of an operating government. open to being shown wrong on this one. it'd be nice. but if government suppression of competing ideologies is a constant, i'd prefer taking the vote from people calling for a white ethnostate, to murdering people for asking not to be shot on a whim for their skin color.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2018 20:41
|
|
|
enki42 posted:The same way that slavery was made illegal in most places. Political advocacy and pressure, and swaying the will of the people to support what's right. In the US abolishing slavery required the bloodiest war in its history and the Reconstruction disenfranchised Confederate officials, required that voters take an oath against the Confederacy, and involved the union army violently suppressing the KKK. The minute this political suppression stopped the pro-Confederate redeemers seized power and brought back slavery in everything but name. Consider an alternate timeline where the Confederate elite (Jefferson Davis, the governors, the generals, anyone who owned more than 500 slaves) are executed for committing rape, murder, and treason on a scale never before seen in US history and their enormous potential to do it again (this would be less than the 98 people the US executed in 1999). Everyone who owned slaves or served as an officer is permanently disfranchised, has their property confiscated and redistributed to their slaves, and may serve 0-15 years in prison based on the magnitude of their crimes. Pro-Confederate or Confederate apologist organizations are banned for 40 years and banned from public demonstration for 80 years and the Confederate flag is banned for 120 years. We'd live in a much better timeline than one where we have a hardcore pro-Confederate party and a party that says dumb poo poo like "I may not agree with what you're saying but I'll defend your right to say it" about the KKK threatening the people they're supposed to represent. It wouldn't even be a temporary decrease in democracy because the 14 years of the Reconstruction were the most free and democratic government in the history of the South precisely because the Confederates were suppressed.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2018 20:51
|
|
|
Microcline posted:In the US abolishing slavery required the bloodiest war in its history and the Reconstruction disenfranchised Confederate officials, required that voters take an oath against the Confederacy, and involved the union army violently suppressing the KKK. The minute this political suppression stopped the pro-Confederate redeemers seized power and brought back slavery in everything but name. Consider an alternate timeline where the Confederate elite (Jefferson Davis, the governors, the generals, anyone who owned more than 500 slaves) are executed for committing rape, murder, and treason on a scale never before seen in US history and their enormous potential to do it again (this would be less than the 98 people the US executed in 1999). Everyone who owned slaves or served as an officer is permanently disfranchised, has their property confiscated and redistributed to their slaves, and may serve 0-15 years in prison based on the magnitude of their crimes. Pro-Confederate or Confederate apologist organizations are banned for 40 years and banned from public demonstration for 80 years and the Confederate flag is banned for 120 years. We'd live in a much better timeline than one where we have a hardcore pro-Confederate party and a party that says dumb poo poo like "I may not agree with what you're saying but I'll defend your right to say it" about the KKK threatening the people they're supposed to represent. It wouldn't even be a temporary decrease in democracy because the 14 years of the Reconstruction were the most free and democratic government in the history of the South precisely because the Confederates were suppressed. "you see this was different because this was done before the end of history, unlike where we are today" - every lib in this thread
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2018 21:05
|
|
|
Yeowch!!! My Balls!!! posted:sometimes you just gotta murder a bunch of black activists. in defense of your society. which is free. Look, society can still be free as long as you just claim that all incidents that suppress peoples' freedom and rights are unintended exceptions. Owlofcreamcheese posted:Said with no irony. It is not ironic if you believe that 1. conservatives and conservative ideology are bad and harmful and 2. your own ideology is good and not harmful. It makes no sense to act like all ideas are just intrinsically equal in some way. Some ideas are good and others are bad. It is not at all hypocritical to suppress bad things and promote good things. Owlofcreamcheese posted:Like, you are deciding that everyone who would vote against you shouldn't be allowed to vote at all. Do you not think that the guy on the other side of the vote would say the same? Do you not see that the claims you make of your moral superiority would be things matched by his? My feeling is that there probably isn't a situation where direct suppression would be a good idea. Not because it's morally wrong, but because it wouldn't be effective. It's probably a better idea to do something similar to what we see in our current society, where undesired ideas are simply socially censured and excluded from mainstream media. So the government would try to promote messaging that informs people about the harm of conservative/capitalist ideology. Directly cracking down on it is likely to have the opposite effect of actually drawing attention to it. As long as people are mostly able to have good lives, it's doubtful they'll be seeking any dramatic alternatives, anyways. This is one of the ways the US and other Western nations have suppressed leftist ideology; until relatively recently, they managed to provide a good quality of life for most people through exported exploitation. Through creating a good life for our citizens through the exploitation of other people, most citizens in our own country are kept satisfied enough to not want to rock the boat or seek alternatives. If a socialist nation were able to provide a good enough quality of life for its people, and it didn't have the interference of other wealthy capitalist nations to worry about, it likely wouldn't have to be concerned about a spontaneous uprising of capitalist ideology. vvv it is possible, though the opposition in my case is pragmatic rather than moral - see the reply I edited into this post edit: To elaborate, the reason why I'm not morally opposed is that I don't think there's anything fundamentally different about harmful speech compared with other harmful actions. Why is it fundamentally wrong to punish harmful speech and not fundamentally wrong to punish a harmful action like robbing someone? Or heck, there's even speech we punish without deeming it "autocratic" - for example, if someone is verbally harassing someone else, we punish that. Because it's harmful. Promoting ideology that says gay people are bad is also harmful, both because it might spread harmful ideas and because it causes actual harm to existing gay people. what is the fundamental difference between those things? The one sort of speech suppression I would consider fundamentally unacceptable is cracking down on private thoughts/expression, but once you're expressing something publicly where others are exposed to it, it can harm other people. Ytlaya fucked around with this message at 22:22 on Dec 6, 2018 |
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2018 22:03
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:It is not ironic if you believe that 1. conservatives and conservative ideology are bad and harmful and 2. your own ideology is good and not harmful. It's possible to both thing you have good ideas AND not think that an authoritarian dictatorship that enforces those ideas is a good idea.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2018 22:09
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:It's possible to both thing you have good ideas AND not think that an authoritarian dictatorship that enforces those ideas is a good idea. capitalism is an authoritarian dictatorship of capital over labor. I happen to think that's a bad thing. Also non-white supremacists dictating that white supremacists should shut up and quit doing that is good, not bad. hope that helps. Ruzihm fucked around with this message at 22:26 on Dec 6, 2018 |
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2018 22:15
|
|
|
I don't think people object to the idea that Nazis should be silenced. What people object to is the idea that anyone even talking about capitalism or whatever should be punished. For all its ills, the United States isn't jailing people for *talking* about socialism - evidenced by the fact we're all able to have this discussion.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2018 22:54
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:The one sort of speech suppression I would consider fundamentally unacceptable is cracking down on private thoughts/expression, but once you're expressing something publicly where others are exposed to it, it can harm other people. Isn't it a little strange that speech like "capitalism is good and should be instituted at a government level" is considered harmful, but actual harm e.g. targeting people to be killed is considered just and right, even if those people have not conducted harm themselves?
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2018 22:58
|
|
|
CelestialScribe posted:Isn't it a little strange that speech like "capitalism is good and should be instituted at a government level" is considered harmful, but actual harm e.g. targeting people to be killed is considered just and right, even if those people have not conducted harm themselves? Shut the gently caress up liberal
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2018 23:03
|
|
|
Phi230 posted:Shut the gently caress up liberal I think this is one of the key things standing in front of socialism: you are never, ever going to get the majority of people to agree that saying things like "capitalism is good" should be a jailable offense. It just isn't going to happen.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2018 23:05
|
|
|
CelestialScribe posted:I think this is one of the key things standing in front of socialism: you are never, ever going to get the majority of people to agree that saying things like "capitalism is good" should be a jailable offense. It just isn't going to happen. No but if we show people your posting they'll be fine with throwing you in prison
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2018 23:06
|
|
|
this discussion really is tedious, isn't it
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2018 23:07
|
|
|
CelestialScribe posted:Isn't it a little strange that speech like "capitalism is good and should be instituted at a government level" is considered harmful, but actual harm e.g. targeting people to be killed is considered just and right, even if those people have not conducted harm themselves? no it's pretty historically common. happened to monarchists advocating for feudalism during the french revolution.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2018 23:07
|
|
|
Phi230 posted:No but if we show people your posting they'll be fine with throwing you in prison You're either too young to be engaging in this type of discussion, or old enough to know better.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2018 23:07
|
|
|
Ruzihm posted:no it's pretty historically common Doesn't make it right.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2018 23:08
|
|
|
CelestialScribe posted:Doesn't make it right. You asked if it was strange 
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2018 23:08
|
|
|
For a supposed discussion thread you sure have a lot of whingey liberals coming in and rehashing the same bad faith shitposting page after page after page Yeah CS and OOCS, you sure owned all the people itt with your strawmen and gish gallopping
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2018 23:09
|
|
|
V. Illych L. posted:this discussion really is tedious, isn't it It is because the people advocating for capitalism and "free speech" categorically deny that capitalism is itself harmful which means there's no real basis for common ground or agreement. The discussion is a dead end.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2018 23:09
|
|
|
Ruzihm posted:capitalism is an authoritarian dictatorship of capital over labor. I happen to think that's a bad thing. It sounds like you are only upset you don't get to be the dictator, and when you are incharge all opposition will be banned, but you'll get it right for sure this time, since a person claiming to be socialist could NEVER end up censoring the wrong people. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2018 23:09
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:It sounds like you are only upset you don't get to be the dictator, and when you are incharge all opposition will be banned, but you'll get it right for sure this time, since a person claiming to be socialist could NEVER end up censoring the wrong people. can u quote me on that plz
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2018 23:10
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:It is because the people advocating for capitalism and "free speech" categorically deny that capitalism is itself harmful which means there's no real basis for common ground or agreement. The discussion is a dead end. It's tedious because the socialists in this thread constantly look past the actual argument being made. No one in this thread has argued for unlimited freedom of speech.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2018 23:11
|
|
|
^^^ But none of the people in question have defended why the line should be drawn where they choose to draw it. They make it very clear that certain forms of speech restriction are not only wrong, but "autocratic" and completely beyond the pale, but they don't explain what practical consequences justify this evaluation.CelestialScribe posted:Isn't it a little strange that speech like "capitalism is good and should be instituted at a government level" is considered harmful, but actual harm e.g. targeting people to be killed is considered just and right, even if those people have not conducted harm themselves? The point is that the expression of speech/ideas can cause harm, and even the people who say suppressing speech is bad will usually agree about things like "verbally harassing (or sometimes lying about/libeling, depending on the person's opinions) a person should be considered a crime." So the issue was never that suppression of speech is bad, since obviously they're not opposed to all suppression of speech. The question then becomes where you draw the line, and I think that it's not particularly hard to argue that many political ideas are inherently harmful. For example, conservative ideas that promote the idea of a just world, wealth be earned, poverty being deserved, etc are actively harmful. Why is the suppression of those ideas/speech beyond the pale in a way that the suppression of other harmful speech isn't? Or for an even more obvious example, you can use the sort of racism (or dog whistle racist) ideas conservatives have. Those ideas are not only harmful if put into practice, but their mere expression causes harm to the people targeted by their opinions. How is this fundamentally different from the harm a person experiences from being verbally harassed? edit: Also, who is advocating killing people who have not conducted harm? Not sure what you're referring to there. Ytlaya fucked around with this message at 23:14 on Dec 6, 2018 |
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2018 23:12
|
|
|
CelestialScribe posted:It's tedious because the socialists in this thread constantly look past the actual argument being made. No one in this thread has argued for unlimited freedom of speech. No, not really. The vision of free speech you're claiming to defend doesn't and has never existed under capitalism and capitalism itself is a bad thing for society, that is the argument being made. You simply don't agree that the restrictions on speech being presented are reasonable and there's clearly no reconciliation of beliefs here.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2018 23:13
|
|
|
Can I make a suggestion? Maybe this thread would be more useful if we actually discussed the economic system of socialism instead of all of our opinions on exactly what speech we should suppress and how Animal Farm is actually a user guide to running a socialist government.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2018 23:14
|
|
|
enki42 posted:Can I make a suggestion? Maybe this thread would be more useful if we actually discussed the economic system of socialism instead of all of our opinions on exactly what speech we should suppress and how Animal Farm is actually a user guide to running a socialist government. The liberal crew who don't particularly support socialism are the ones who keep constantly harping on this stupid rear end topic. I made a long post about an actual example of labor history in the US that is relevant to organizing socialist movements and I'm about to write another one, you guys choose to keep having this stupid loving argument.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2018 23:16
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:The point is that the expression of speech/ideas can cause harm, and even the people who say suppressing speech is bad will usually agree about things like "verbally harassing (or sometimes lying about/libeling, depending on the person's opinions) a person should be considered a crime." So the issue was never that suppression of speech is bad, since obviously they're not opposed to all suppression of speech. The question then becomes where you draw the line, and I think that it's not particularly hard to argue that many political ideas are inherently harmful. For example, conservative ideas that promote the idea of a just world, wealth be earned, poverty being deserved, etc are actively harmful. Why is the suppression of those ideas/speech beyond the pale in a way that the suppression of other harmful speech isn't? Or for an even more obvious example, you can use the sort of racism (or dog whistle racist) ideas conservatives have. Those ideas are not only harmful if put into practice, but their mere expression causes harm to the people targeted by their opinions. How is this fundamentally different from the harm a person experiences from being verbally harassed? Because if I say to another person, "black people are terrible and deserve to be killed", it is easy for that person to go and cause another person harm. There is less friction in actually bringing that harm into a physical reality. If I say, "capitalism is good", it is extremely hard for me on my own to institute a capitalist system. You need to organise, lobby government, etc. The only way it's going to happen is if a majority of people agree that it's good and should occur. And at that point, any socialist government ignoring the will of the people is probably acting beyond its own authority. I mean, what you're suggesting is that anything mentioning capitalism: people, books, films, etc, should be completely banned. No mention of capitalism should ever be allowed. I just think that's ridiculous because the only way those ideas will cause harm is if they are put into reality: which is impossible for the single person on their own.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2018 23:16
|
|
|
CelestialScribe posted:I mean, what you're suggesting is that anything mentioning capitalism: people, books, films, etc, should be completely banned. No mention of capitalism should ever be allowed. I'm the straw socialist who wants to ban Marx's Capital
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2018 23:17
|
|
|
Ruzihm posted:I'm the straw socialist who wants to ban Marx's Capital How to reconcile this, then? If discussion of capitalism is allowed but advocating it is not, how is that even policed?
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2018 23:20
|
|
|
CelestialScribe posted:I mean, what you're suggesting is that anything mentioning capitalism: people, books, films, etc, should be completely banned. No mention of capitalism should ever be allowed. I just think that's ridiculous because the only way those ideas will cause harm is if they are put into reality: which is impossible for the single person on their own. again, literal Joseph Stalin recognized that was a pointless waste of effort when you could just have some controlled opposition to beat up on at regularly scheduled intervals when you need your opponents to be more authoritarian than Stalin in order to argue against them, perhaps this is a hint you're reaching for a caricature to argue against.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2018 23:20
|
|
|
Can we go back to discussing whether CS should be the first one up against the wall when the revolution comes? That was somehow slightly in better faith than every bad faith argument he's tried since.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2018 23:22
|
|
|
Azathoth posted:Can we go back to discussing whether CS should be the first one up against the wall when the revolution comes? That was somehow slightly in better faith than every bad faith argument he's tried since. My point proven.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2018 23:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 09:01 |
|
|
Azathoth posted:Can we go back to discussing whether CS should be the first one up against the wall when the revolution comes? That was somehow slightly in better faith than every bad faith argument he's tried since. Deffo not the first but he's up there
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2018 23:23
|
|