Socialsim is only possible through Coercion, by Paul (old title: Equity v. Equality and Government Policy) (2 Viewers)

[coldseat]

I thought of posting this in the All Things Racist thread, but ultimately felt it would be better in it's own thread. I ran across this opinion by George Will warning about the creeping danger of equity based government policy pushed by progressives. His overriding point is:

Harlan’s Plessy dissent insisted that the Constitution’s post-Civil War amendments forbid “the imposition of any burdens or disabilities that constitute badges of slavery or servitude.” Today, 125 years later, multiplying departures from colorblind government — myriad race-based preferential treatments — are becoming a different but also invidious badge: of permanent incapacity.

Laws or administrative policies adopted for (in the words of today’s chief justice, John G. Roberts Jr.) the “sordid” practice of “divvying us up by race” can be deleterious for the intended beneficiaries. Benefits allocated to a specially protected racial cohort might come to be seen as a badge of inferiority. Such preferences might seem to insinuate that recipients of government-dispensed special privileges cannot thrive without them.

Government spoils systems, racial or otherwise, wound their beneficiaries. Getting used to special dependency, and soon experiencing it as an entitlement, the beneficiaries might come to feel entitled to preferences forever. Hence, progressives working to supplant equality of opportunity with “equity” — race-conscious government allocation of social rewards — are profoundly insulting, and potentially injurious, to African Americans and other favored groups.

Canellos’s stirring biography resoundingly establishes that Harlan was a hero. So, what are those who today are trying to erase the great principle of colorblindness that Harlan championed?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/07/30/pursuing-equity-over-equality-reveals-nations-moral-regression/

This is a very convincing argument for equality based government policy, one that I used to believe in, but it ignores a lot of realities and history. First, it ignores that centuries of purposeful inequality in government policy have directly led to the economic, social, and community destabilization and destitution that prevented black families for accumulating wealth. And how those purposeful actions have lead to the astonishing difference in the wealth gap between black and white families that has only worsened over time. While conservative will acknowledge this wealth gap and pay lip service to closing it, they fail to admit/consider how equality based public policy (something we've been trying to implement in race neutral government policy since the 60's) has failed to correct the issue and in many case has served to exacerbate it. While race neutral, equality based government policy may be easier for white voters to accept, it fails to address the historic inequalities entrenched by centuries of purposeful government based inequality. John Oliver make this point perfectly in this piece on housing discrimination. It's a 30 minute commitment, but well worth it because he provides a lot of prospective.



My overall point here is that if we you actually care or want to correct the effects centuries has purposeful government inequality, you actually have to target the aid and remediation to the people who where targeted in the inequality (i.e. equity based government policy). Anything else is paying lip service to the problem and asking black people in particular to "just get over it".

 

[Paul]

Thanks for repeating yourself, again, but I think it'll be more productive at this point if we move on to discussing the reality of democratic socialism and how related policies may be able to help address issues of equity. And not your personal fundamentally flawed notions that have already repeatedly been exposed as bunkum.

You can keep repeating yourself, with added memes, but you're not telling us anything about democratic socialism at this point, you're just telling us about yourself.

I see the so-called social programs(what you call democratic socialism) as a necessary evil. Not all people can fend for themselves and many need help from the state. I am OK with that.

 

[RebSaint]

It's like an ongoing example of the possible validity of the Dunning-Kruger effect.

 

[SystemShock]

Mao, Lenin, Stalin, and Pol Pot murdered millions. Why do you deny that?

Again, must be something lost in translation. 50 years you said?
Dragon isn't denying that, but rather, explaining that they didn't kill anyone because they were socialists; they killed anyone who they thought threaten their power.

And why are you throwing Lenin in that group?

 

[Paul]

It's like an ongoing example of the possible validity of the Dunning-Kruger effect.

I only know I know nothing. Insulting remarks means you have nothing meaningful to say.

 

[V Chip]

The problem with many that propoe democratic socialism is that they see it as a stepping stone to more socialism.

Define "many" and feel free to provide your sources that show that "many" who propose (I assume that's what that's supposed to be) just want full on socialism.

Hey all of us leftists who like Democratic Socialism! If you want to move to full socialism or if that is your end goal, just reply here with "That's me."

 

[Paul]

Must be past the inner core now.

Probably something is lost in translation , but democracy and socialism are not contradictory words. The former is a form of government, the latter is an economic model.

Socialism cannot be democratic. It has to be imposed by coercion.
Can you show how socialism can be imposed without coercion.

 

[Paul]

Define "many" and feel free to provide your sources that show that "many" who propose (I assume that's what that's supposed to be) just want full on socialism.

Hey all of us leftists who like Democratic Socialism! If you want to move to full socialism or if that is your end goal, just reply here with "That's me."

What is Democratic Socialism?​

Our goal is a social and economic system based on direct democracy in politics and economy and on democratically planned production. We want a system of production and distribution that is in accordance with the needs of each individual and of society as a whole, and which takes into account the regenerative capacities of the natural environment.

For us democratic socialism is not a utopian vision of a distant future, but the process of overcoming capitalism by democratic means. A process guided by century-long traditions of emancipatory struggles of workers, peasants, women and indigenous peoples. This democratic overcoming of capitalism will take place:

• ON THE POLITICAL LEVEL, by creating and implementing forms of community participation in matters of public interest, such as participatory budget and direct democracy on the local level (citizens assemblies and public meetings), and replacing the representational system with direct participation in decision-making and by a system of delegates;
• ON THE MICROECONOMIC LEVEL, by implementing forms of economic democracy such as employee ownership, self-government and self-management, and co-operatives;
• ON THE MACROECONOMIC LEVEL, by abolishing the market and competition as social mechanisms, which are causes of constant crises in capitalism, and by forming alternative modes of coordinating the production and distribution of goods, for example cooperation between production units instead of competition, and democratic planning instead of ‘blind’ market production;
• IN RELATION TO THE NATURAL ENVIRONMENT, by planning the scope of production in accordance with the regenerative capabilities of the environment, and by sustainable economic growth based on a redistribution of the existing wealth and on a simultaneous implementation of environmentally friendly technologies; accordingly, on a global level, each individual must be granted equal access to drinking water, farmland and other natural resources that enable a decent living;
• IN RELATION TO QUESTIONS OF CLASS AND IDENTITIES, by abolishing class differences between labour and capital and all other social forms of inequality and subordination, particularly discrimination based on race, gender, sexual orientation, national or ethnical origin and handicap.

Manifesto of the Initiative for Democratic Socialism (IDS)

www.demokraticni-socializem.si

 

[V Chip]

Must be past the inner core now.

Probably something is lost in translation , but democracy and socialism are not contradictory words. The former is a form of government, the latter is an economic model.

Paul is incapable of seeing the distinction. He lives in sound-bite land where anything deeper than a ten-second summary or quick wikipedia read can't be understood.

 

[V Chip]

Manifesto of the Initiative for Democratic Socialism (IDS)

www.demokraticni-socializem.si

So one organization defines "many" (which again, you fail to define how many is "many")? So if I find a capitalist group website who are also for white supremacy, I can say "many capitalists and conservatives are in favor of white supremacy" and that would be a good generalization?

We have explained things to you over and over and you still fall back on the same inanities. At this point discussion is fruitless since you only revert to the same sound-bite inaccuracies.

 

[Paul]

Socialism cannot be democratic. It has to be imposed by coercion.
Can you show how socialism can be imposed without coercion.

Let me say this again. I do not have a problem with social programs, free college, Medicare for all, etc. That is not the point. My issue is the term "democratic socialism". It has to be an oxymoron because socialism can only be enforced by coercion. By definition socialism robs MAN of the freedom to be entrepreneurial for his own benefit.

 

[RebSaint]

I only know I know nothing. Insulting remarks means you have nothing meaningful to say.

I'll say something meaningful: I knew from the jump that you were not here to discuss things in good faith. I told you last time I'm not wasting my time, so I'll just remind you that I'm sure others will still attempt to engage and it'll just become redundant.

Your posts are daily riddled with falsehoods, and almost. every. single. post. is a practice invoking logical fallacies, including but not limited to: goalpost moving, false equivalencies, contradictions, red herrings, gish galloping, cherry picking, etc. etc. etc. You have absolutely no contemporary or historical understanding of much of anything relating to Communism, Fascism, capitalism, Democratic-Socialism, Marxism, etc.

I'm surprised anybody still actually attempts to engage you on serious intellectual level because your willful ignorance is stunning.

 

[Paul]

So one organization defines "many" (which again, you fail to define how many is "many")? So if I find a capitalist group website who are also for white supremacy, I can say "many capitalists and conservatives are in favor of white supremacy" and that would be a good generalization?

We have explained things to you over and over and you still fall back on the same inanities. At this point discussion is fruitless since you only revert to the same sound-bite inaccuracies.

Two wrongs do not make a right.

Let me say this again. I do not have a problem with social programs, free college, Medicare for all, etc. That is not the point. My issue is the term "democratic socialism". It has to be an oxymoron because socialism can only be enforced by coercion. By definition socialism robs MAN of the freedom to be entrepreneurial for his own benefit.

 

[Paul]

I'll say something meaningful: I knew from the jump that you were not here to discuss things in good faith. I told you last time I'm not wasting my time, so I'll just remind you that I'm sure others will still attempt to engage and it'll just become redundant.

Your posts are daily riddled with falsehoods, and almost. every. single. post. is a practice invoking logical fallacies, including but not limited to: goalpost moving, false equivalencies, red herrings, gish galloping, cherry picking, etc. etc. etc. You have absolutely no contemporary or historical understanding of much of anything relating to Communism, Fascism, capitalism, Democratic-Socialism, Marxism, etc.

I'm surprised anybody still actually attempts to engage you on serious intellectual level because your willful ignorance is stunning.

You wrote many words, but failed to mount a credible argument.
So I ask: Do you think socialism is democratic?

 

[Dragon]

I'm done answering questions that has been answered 50 times in this thread while you ignore most of the questions others ask you. I'm out. Not wasting anymore time in this thread.

 

[RobF]

Socialism cannot be democratic. It has to be imposed by coercion.
Can you show how socialism can be imposed without coercion.

Posts #217 and #222.

 

[V Chip]

Democracy, by Pauls definition, is an oxymoron. No matter what is decided upon by the majority, there will be a minority who do not like the decision, therefore democracy cannot be "democratic" and rules will be enforced by coercion on the minority. This "tyranny of the majority" means our own government cannot exist, according to that inane repeated argument.*

* In before the pedantic "but we're not a Democracy!!!" argument comes out.

 

[Paul]

Democracy, by Pauls definition, is an oxymoron. No matter what is decided upon by the majority, there will be a minority who do not like the decision, therefore democracy cannot be "democratic" and rules will be enforced by coercion on the minority. This "tyranny of the majority" means our own government cannot exist, according to that inane repeated argument.*

* In before the pedantic "but we're not a Democracy!!!" argument comes out.

If a democracy votes to outlaw homosexuality. Are you OK with that? Would that be coercion?

 

[brandon]

Let me say this again. I do not have a problem with social programs, free college, Medicare for all, etc. That is not the point. My issue is the term "democratic socialism". It has to be an oxymoron because socialism can only be enforced by coercion. By definition socialism robs MAN of the freedom to be entrepreneurial for his own benefit.

Let me say this again. I do not have a problem with social programs, free college, Medicare for all, etc.

But you do have a problem admitting when you’re wrong.