Socialism is Slavery

[Tantal]

While listening to the radio today I caught of few minutes of a show hosted by Walter "Black by Popular Demand" Williams. Today's discussion centered on socialism. Williams' thesis was that slavery is defined as: "the forcible use of one man's labor for the benefit of another." Isn't that pretty-much what socialism is?

[Spartacus]

While listening to the radio today I caught of few minutes of a show hosted by Walter "Black by Popular Demand" Williams. Today's discussion centered on socialism. Williams' thesis was that slavery is defined as: "the forcible use of one man's labor for the benefit of another." Isn't that pretty-much what socialism is?

I think it's a pretty apt way of describing capitalism but each to their own

[Tantal]

I think it's a pretty apt way of describing capitalism but each to their own

Capitalism doesn't do it at gunpoint, socialism does. In a capitalist system, if you don't like the wage or working conditions of any given employer, you are free to find work elsewhere. In a socialist system, if you don't like the amount of money confiscated from your paycheck, you can pay it anyway......or have your assets seized.....or go to jail.

[Spartacus]

Capitalism doesn't do it at gunpoint, socialism does.

Challenge a capitalist systems elite and you will find they are not scared to use violence either.
If you don't believe me do some research on Latin American right wing Juntas down the years , it's all there.

Staying closer to home , ever heard of Peterloo? Google it.

There are many examples of such things but we are hardly likely to be taught them in the educational system that maintains that system are we ?

Think about it.

In a capitalist system, if you don't like the wage or working conditions of any given employer, you are free to find work elsewhere. In a socialist system, if you don't like the amount of money confiscated from your paycheck, you can pay it anyway......or have your assets seized.....or go to jail.

Yep , you can work for another employer and line their pockets , it's no different imo.( you might get a slightly better deal out of it )

You can start your own business for sure , then you will see the labour of others going to line your pockets.

So it's not as black and white as I think you try to make it out to be ,imho.

[Tantal]

You can start your own business for sure , then you will see the labour of others going to line your pockets.

The key word being "forcible". In a capitalist system there is a contractual relationship between employer and employee. In a socialist system, there is a master/slave relationship.

[Spartacus]

The key word being "forcible". In a capitalist system there is a contractual relationship between employer and employee. In a socialist system, there is a master/slave relationship.

I don't see a difference we are all forced to earn a crust in either system.

State capitalism and capitalism just means the employer if different. The master/servant relationship remains the same its just the employer that changes IE State employer V worker and Private employer V worker.

During the English Civil War there was a movement known as the Diggers. In those days there remained common land ( land owned by one person but allowing certain rights of the people to arable farm it , grazing for livestock , etc ) and the Diggers sought to work that land communally thus not being beholding to either State or employer.

That attempt for communal autonomy, sadly imo , was crushed and all the common land disappeared into private hands. Thus removing the chance of anyone following the Diggers example and also providing the few private owners of the newly enclosed ( fenced off )land to enjoy complete ownership and denying the former rights of everyone else.

Thus the englishmen and women of the land became reliant on these private land owners for their very existance. IE forced to work for private landowners. Nothing has changed since , so it's not like we all have a choice really is it ?

For a more barbaric eviction of ordinary people by landowners refer to the Scottish Highland clearances in the 1800's.

The tale of english weavers ( once the most populous of industries here ) is a similar tale of the compromise of working people and the promotion of private ownership ( this time of looms )

I think it is all very relevant to the lack of personal autonomy and the forcing of people into wage slavery which underpins the capitalist system.

You just don't seem to see it that way

[JAMC]

Personally I define slavery as the legal ownership of a human being.

As far as "socialism is slavery?" goes, I don't see any value in the question - beyond forum posturing.

[Tantal]

I think it is all very relevant to the lack of personal autonomy and the forcing of people into wage slavery which underpins the capitalist system.

There is no wage slavery. If I don't like my job, I can turn my gear in tomorrow, tell my Chief to go screw himself, and leave. He has no recourse. Aside from the fact that I like my job, what keeps me from doing this is that I have a family that depends on me. It doesn't mean tha I'm a slave, it simply means that I have a responsibility to my family to keep them fed and sheltered. If you follow socialism to its logical conclusion, a person can be forced, at gunpoint if necessary, to work "for the good of the people".

[Tantal]

Personally I define slavery as the legal ownership of a human being.

When someone, namely the government, can forcibly take any amount of your wages that they see fit, then you are a slave to that government. Where did we go wrong as a society that when the productive members of society become the slaves, while the lazy become the masters, demanding that the slaves produce more for them because they "need" it? Just because you can get 51% of a populace to approve of a theft, doesn't mean that it isn't theft. It may be legal, but it's still immoral.

[JAMC]

When someone, namely the government, can forcibly take any amount of your wages that they see fit, then you are a slave to that government.

Taxation and slavery are two distinctly different concepts. Was it not you who said in this very thread that there was no such thing as wage slavery? Attempting to fuse taxes and slavery together for rhetorical impact is no different.

Where did we go wrong as a society that when the productive members of society become the slaves, while the lazy become the masters, demanding that the slaves produce more for them because they "need" it?

Rhetorical question.

Just because you can get 51% of a populace to approve of a theft, doesn't mean that it isn't theft. It may be legal, but it's still immoral.

In pure form, democracy often produces extraordinary decisions. You only need to look at some of the votes cast by the ancient Athenians to see the kind of communal mistakes that can be made when the majority is in the wrong. For democracy to function effectively, you must have an informed, knowledgable electorate who are historically aware and capable of learning from their collective mistakes.

[Spartacus]

For democracy to function effectively, you must have an informed, knowledgable electorate who are historically aware and capable of learning from their collective mistakes.

I completely agree and have held this belief for many years now

But that would involve educating the masses , right ?

I don't mean the type of education that supports elite opinion , I mean a true revision of the historical record and a real understanding of real life issues.

The dismantling of the propaganda system and filters that accompany them.

The powerful would sooner blow up the planet than allow any of this as you probably already know.

But its good to see someone here who understands what democracy is about and hasn't fallen , or doesn't appear to have fallen , for the rubbish passed off as democracy in the " free " world or anywhere else.

If socialism is utopian then democracy is likewise utopian and its the same people who condemn them both for reasons that are not obscure.

If democracy ever reached anywhere near what you have suggested , they would ban it. For now they are happy to have a sham that they can revise at their leisure.

[pauli007001]

I completely agree and have held this belief for many years now

But that would involve educating the masses , right ?

I don't mean the type of education that supports elite opinion , I mean a true revision of the historical record and a real understanding of real life issues.

The dismantling of the propaganda system and filters that accompany them.

The powerful would sooner blow up the planet than allow any of this as you probably already know.

But its good to see someone here who understands what democracy is about and hasn't fallen , or doesn't appear to have fallen , for the rubbish passed off as democracy in the " free " world or anywhere else.

If socialism is utopian then democracy is likewise utopian and its the same people who condemn them both for reasons that are not obscure.

If democracy ever reached anywhere near what you have suggested , they would ban it. For now they are happy to have a sham that they can revise at their leisure.

Dont forget whilst punishing folk today for the actions of people 200 years ago who lived here is not only socialist but retarded.People should feel bad about slavery if they are white british for example,what if during the days of slavery their ancestors were white Irish(more likely to be slaves than slavers)?Your socialist idea of democracy is allowing people to choose subject to approoval of the party or leader.Socialism and Taxation is modern day slavery,i demand reparations for all the tax i have had stolen from me that was given to subsidise lazyness at home and abroad!!!!!!!!!!

[Tantal]

Taxation and slavery are two distinctly different concepts. Was it not you who said in this very thread that there was no such thing as wage slavery? Attempting to fuse taxes and slavery together for rhetorical impact is no different.

There is no wage slavery because employment and remuneration are based on a voluntary agreement between employer and employee. Not all taxation is slavery. Taxes levied to fund police, the courts, fire departments, and the military, from which we all benefit equally, are legitimate. Taxes that are levied from one person so that a check can be written to another person is economic slavery as it involves the use of force if the slave refuses to pay.

In pure form, democracy often produces extraordinary decisions.

Which is why I'm not a big fan of a pure democracy. My preference is a representative Constitutional Republic whereby the rights of the minority are protected from any thuggery by the other 51%.

[JAMC]

I don't mean the type of education that supports elite opinion , I mean a true revision of the historical record and a real understanding of real life issues.

Simply getting history onto the cultural agenda would be a start. Would try and avoid revisionism (he who controls the past...), but new interpretations (warts 'n' all) are always welcome.

[Tantal]

Simply getting history onto the cultural agenda would be a start.

Good luck with that. It may cut into the budgets for sex education, cultural sensitivity, and self-esteem curricula though.

[JAMC]

There is no wage slavery because employment and remuneration are based on a voluntary agreement between employer and employee.

Wage slavery is for another thread, this one is about tax slavery.

Not all taxation is slavery.

Well, that clarification puts a very different spin on the whole thing.

Taxes levied to fund police, the courts, fire departments, and the military, from which we all benefit equally, are legitimate. Taxes that are levied from one person so that a check can be written to another person is economic slavery as it involves the use of force if the slave refuses to pay.

Sounds like it's not taxation you object to, but rather wealth redistribution via taxation.

Which is why I'm not a big fan of a pure democracy. My preference is a representative Constitutional Republic whereby the rights of the minority are protected from any thuggery by the other 51%.

Augmenting the democratic process by introducing constitutional rights (written or unwritten) has been a cornerstone of modern societies for a long time - we're still perfecting the art of granting rights though, and not all rights ever enshrined in law have been good in the long run. For example, on the 16th of Jan the right to short-sell assets held on UK markets will be restored, despite the questionable ethical impact of this practice. This is one case in point (albeit specific and localized) where the minority's "right" to perform this activity may lead to detrimental conditions for the majority - not sure I agree with this right being re-introduced.

[JAMC]

Good luck with that. It may cut into the budgets for sex education, cultural sensitivity, and self-esteem curricula though.

Maybe some of the money splashed around recklessly by the UK govt at the moment could be used to buy Endemol and force them to make something historically relevent instead of the voyeuristic, sensationalist non-entity that is "Big Brother".

[Midas]

Maybe some of the money splashed around recklessly by the UK govt at the moment could be used to buy Endemol and force them to make something historically relevent instead of the voyeuristic, sensationalist non-entity that is "Big Brother".

So you support the view that a government should use its power to interfere in the way that a private company runs its perfectly legal business do you?

FWIW, I think Big Brother is a totally trash show too and I have absolutely zero interest in watching it, but as long as other people want to see it, Endemol has a perfect right to go on producing it.

[JAMC]

So you support the view that a government should use its power to interfere in the way that a private company runs its perfectly legal business do you?

No it was just a jibe at reckless government spending and the cultural irrelevence of TV sludge. In reality buying Endemol would be a total waste of money, as the only reason to buy it would be to shut it down!

[Tantal]

Maybe some of the money splashed around recklessly by the UK govt at the moment could be used to buy Endemol and force them to make something historically relevent instead of the voyeuristic, sensationalist non-entity that is "Big Brother".

Wow. An issue where we actually agree.
Every time I pass one of those idiot reality shows when flipping through the channels, I can actually feel my IQ dropping.

[Tantal]

Well, that clarification puts a very different spin on the whole thing.
Sounds like it's not taxation you object to, but rather wealth redistribution via taxation.

Precisely. We all use bridges, we all use roads, we all use police (whether directly or indirecly), the military protects every member of its nation equally, so I have no problem funding these things through my taxes. What I take issue with is forcibly removing money from one man's pocket to put it into the pocket of another. I'm a conservative, not an anarchist.