/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

"I ain't driving 20 minutes to riot."

catalog
Mode: Reply
Name
E-mail
Subject
Message

Max message length: 8192

Files

Max file size: 80.00 MB

Max files: 5

Password

(used to delete files and postings)

Misc

Remember to follow the rules


/leftypol/ is a non-sectarian board for leftist discussion. Join the Matrix: https://www.riot.im/app/#/room/!BnDgjhpLxZoHFVlyFA:matrix.org Visit the Booru: https://lefty.booru.org/ Follow the Twitter: https://twitter.com/bunkerchanLP

(56.34 KB 1280x720 tr.jpg)
Anonymous 01/12/2021 (Tue) 11:23:44 No. 1236551
what do you think of thaddeus russell's critique of socialism? >https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=48z0N7vjKJ4 (approx 31:00 - 1:25:00) basically: socialism relies on coercion because some people don't want to participate in socialism in particular russell says he doesn't consent to paying taxes to the socialist republic or participating in its meetings or democratic planning russell is an ex-marxist who wrote his dissertation on labor history and taught classes on das kapital so he's not just some uninformed libertarian
>>1236551 >He doesn't want to pay taxes Boo fucking hoo. After the American revolution the us tried to make states voluntarily pay taxes and it didn't fucking happen. This led to unpaid veterans who then rose up to try and fix the clusterfuck that was the AoC and the central government couldn't even put it down private citizens had raise private armies to shoot and kill private citizens. Taxes are essential to any state socialist or not and saying "socialism can't work cause taxes" ignores 1) voluntary taxation doesn't work and 2) every state in history of the world has had mandatory taxation in some form. Does that mean every single state in the world is a failed state? This shit is childish.
>>1236908 but what justifies coercive taxation under socialism?
You would also be free to starve on the street like in any other system.
Best Korea has no taxation lol
>>1236939 The real redpill is that the only way to liberate yourself from oppression is to become the oppressor.
>>1236942 It was a well-known fact you could only enjoy freedom if someone else was slaving away for you.
>>1236936 if the idea of socialism is based on liberty or liberation, how can a socialist not give a fuck about coercion? if socialism isn't based on liberty, then what is it based on?
>>1236989 is advancing the productive forces supposed to be an end in itself?
>>1236930 russell's position isn't that he refuses to work but that he refuses to "work for the socialist republic" he implies that he wants the full product of his labor
>>1237019 But this individualism within a collective body of individuals (society) is self defeating since to so one would have to have an collective body to sustain him, however having a society run in such a manner wouldn't allow for something like that. Perhaps some sort communitarian workshop/kitchen would solve the issue
>>1236944 >>1236989 >>1236991 Advancing the productive forces ALLOWS for liberation, it doesn't mean that it will or that it should. Anyway that guys argument is wack since in socialism taxes would be on their to abolishment and the full product of his labor shouldn't exist in an acumulative form
>>1236551 >in particular russell says he doesn't consent to paying taxes There are no taxes in North Korea >participating in its meetings or democratic planning Then don't. I see no reason to force people to participate in politics if they don't want to. I think the general desire to not participate in politics with liberals like this guy is due to liberal societies ultimately being dictatorships of the bourgeois class, and thus "civic engagement" is a placebo at best. But a supposed former socialist should be able to see beyond liberalism, but whatever. He's an academic ultimately more concerned with maintaining his position in society than trying to transcend that society.
>>1236551 >russell is an ex-marxist So is Thomas Sowell. It doesn't matter how informed he is. When he makes Arguments like this, you know some think tank is behind it, that wants him to say shit like that. If he taught classes on Capital, how can he misrepresent the goal of Socialism like that?
>>1236924 The fact that people are better off paying taxes then not
>>1237041 Workers aren't paid the full value of their labor in nk so their is indirect taxation in nk
>>1237041 >>1237035 russell's objection should apply to any redistribution of his surplus labor value, not just taxation in a strict sense his point is that it's coercive to take any part of the product of his labor without his consent
>>1237054 where is the misrepresentation in your opinion?
>>1236551 You can't abolish taxes without abolishing the state which is the end goal of all socialists
>>1237077 >Workers aren't paid the full value of their labor in nk Workers aren't paid the full value of their labor anywhere. You may have noticed how this dipshit doesn't care about capitalists appropriating surplus value from their workers.
>>1237087 He thinks Socialism is based on Coercion and by refusing to participate in a Socialist Society, he will show its blatant flaws. The truth is, that Socialism needs as much Coercion as Capitalism needs it. Marxism just puts a decisive focus on Labor and the Extraction of Surplus by Private Property. A Marxist Society obviously wants to erase that Relation. Now he comes along and says "You can't force me to pay taxes". If he ever was a Marxist, then he should know that was never the point of it. He should know that Private Property is robbing the Workers of far more Freedom, than this "Coercion" ever will
Literally every society and economy relies on coercion, the question is how that is utilized. If you have any kind monopoly on violnece, you cannot avoid this reality.
>>1236551 Yeah well I never consented to capitalism
(120.70 KB 540x694 adam smith.jpg)
>>1236551 >basically: socialism relies on coercion "Wherever there is great property there is great inequality. For one very rich man there must be at least five hundred poor, and the affluence of the few supposes the indigence of the many. The affluence of the rich excites the indignation of the poor, who are often both driven by want, and prompted by envy, to invade his possessions. It is only under the shelter of the civil magistrate that the owner of that valuable property, which is acquired by the labour of many years, or perhaps of many successive generations, can sleep a single night in security. He is at all times surrounded by unknown enemies, whom, though he never provoked, he can never appease, and from whose injustice he can be protected only by the powerful arm of the civil magistrate continually held up to chastise it. The acquisition of valuable and extensive property, therefore, necessarily requires the establishment of civil government. Where there is no property, or at least none that exceeds the value of two or three days' labour, civil government is not so necessary. ... It is in the age of shepherds, in the second period of society, that the inequality of fortune first begins to take place, and introduces among men a degree of authority and subordination which could not possibly exist before. It thereby introduces some degree of that civil government which is indispensably necessary for its own preservation: and it seems to do this naturally, and even independent of the consideration of that necessity. The consideration of that necessity comes no doubt afterwards to contribute very much to maintain and secure that authority and subordination. The rich, in particular, are necessarily interested to support that order of things which can alone secure them in the possession of their own advantages. Men of inferior wealth combine to defend those of superior wealth in the possession of their property, in order that men of superior wealth may combine to defend them in the possession of theirs. All the inferior shepherds and herdsmen feel that the security of their own herds and flocks depends upon the security of those of the great shepherd or herdsman; that the maintenance of their lesser authority depends upon that of his greater authority, and that upon their subordination to him depends his power of keeping their inferiors in subordination to them. They constitute a sort of little nobility, who feel themselves interested to defend the property and to support the authority of their own little sovereign in order that he may be able to defend their property and to support their authority. Civil government, so far as it is instituted for the security of property, is in reality instituted for the defence of the rich against the poor, or of those who have some property against those who have none at all."
>>1236551 >socialism relies on coercion All political systems rely on coercion. Coercion is endemic to politics. >so he's not just some uninformed libertarian Could have fooled me with that babby tier analysis.
>>1237088 The fact that he makes critiques of socialism that are either present or heightened under capitalism which makes them pretty pointless critiques.
>>1236823 was meant for >>1237088
>>1236551 Tbh if my parents were Trotskyists I would also hate socialism
>>1236551 Capitalism requires coercion because some people don't want to participate in Capitalism. Like me, for instance. >in particular russell says he doesn't consent to paying taxes to the socialist republic or participating in its meetings or democratic planning No mode of production has ever been subject to the "consent" of individuals. Did the slaves consent to slavery? Did the serfs consent to feudalism? Did the dispossessed agricultural labourer consent to become the capitalist proletarian? Besides, forcing porky to participate in socialism by expropriating their shit and shooting them in the neck if they start shit is a feature, not a bug.
>>1236551 >he's not just some uninformed libertarian yes he is, he just read more than the others, which doesn't matter because it all went one ear in other ear out
>>1236924 there is no justification that libertarians would admit anyway, they operate on "don't tread on me" principle AKA "me me me"
>>1236796 I agree I'm just pointing out that taxation does exist in nk they just don't call it that
all societies rely on coercion, civilization itself = coercion the genius of capitalism is that the coercion is all covert instead of overt, so you're not being told "work or die!" by a commissar, instead you implicitly realize you won't be able to pay the bills and buy food if you don't get a job it's all nudges, like that book by cass sunstein or whatever his name is communism, on the other hand, is more open on that front
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/fired-teaching-american-history_b_767172?guccounter=1 he sounds insufferable btw the "ex-marxist" left "marxism" during college when the faculty expelled some students for burning a cross (which they said they did to protest the KKK)
>>1237083 It's impossible for people to be paid the full value of their labor in a social economy. This is one of Marx's main arguments in Critique of the Gotha program.
>>1236551 >socialism relies on coercion because some people don't want to participate in socialism By that logic capitalism is just as coercive. He also just ignores the possibility of socialism being a choice that people could take and not something that is forced upon them >he doesn't consent to paying taxes I never consented to the profit motive existing >or participating in its meetings or democratic planning He thinks you would be forced to vote? That is quite the assumption
>>1236551 wealth is socially produced, not individually. in fact, lolberts should be grateful for any taxation below 70%. No one can make their money without a stable framework maintained by taxes. the labor power of others, the courts and infrastructure systems, and the many public programs like gov constructuion investment which raises the market value of neighboring properties. since so much wealth is socially produced, it makes sense that at least people who take that wealth pay a little bit back to maintain what allows them to do so. under socialism, all produced capital will be socially owned in reflection of social production of it, which will allow communities to better use their resources towards maintaining the social framework for creating wealth and capital.
>>1236551 He's a idealist who simply chooses to ignores the economy of violence because he has moral objections. The rest is only so many words, which do not matter to men with swords.
>>1236924 >what justifies coercive taxation under socialism?
>>1236917 Life itself involves coercion if you take it to its logical conclusion. My body feels thirsty and is coercing me to drink water
>muh coercion Nobody cares, get in the factory.
if you dont want to prticipate in socialism you could die instead
What’s wrong with coercion when the vanguard is in power? The state should be able to do whatever is necessary to advance socialism, even if it requires holding a gun to the head of the masses
What’s wrong with coercion when the vanguard is in power? The state should be able to do whatever is necessary to advance socialism, even if it requires holding a gun to the head of the masses
>>1236551 Hes a bit of a tard and likes to speak out of both sides of his mouth but can be interesting at times. He seems most on point when shitting on radlibs.
really hate the way the earth's gravitational field coerces me into carrying my own bodyweight and deprives me of the ability to float in the atmosphere
Came here to post about Russell since I was just listening to that Ben Burger interview. He presents his arguments much more convincingly than the average libertarian, and he must be well read considering his background, but at the core these are just the same old libertarian arguments. It's kinda baffling to listen to. He also pulls out other classics such as "Lenin hated the gays". I usually get bored to tears listening to Ben Burger but I think he did a decent job here (as far as I've listened anyway, didn't finish it yet).
same old lolbert arguments in new dressing. "socialism requires coercian" is supremely hypocritical
Humans have been contributing to the public good since the beginning. If you don't want to do it, you're in the minority. It doesn't make sense to cater to you. Set up a community where you and the other non-social people can have your completely independent houses built to your independent desires. I'd think it would be shitty, but if that's what you want go for it.
>>1237263 shut the fuck up, Schopenhauer

Delete
Report

no cookies?
__divBanCaptcha_location__