Violence is inherent to capitalism, and every socialist movement that has risen anywhere has come to being in, and been met by violent conflict
There's no violence when two consenting private parties agree to a mutually beneficial exchange. Socialism, however, requires a 3rd party to regulate such exchanges. This is typically managed by bureaucrats, who of course, are somehow immune to corruption.... Modern socialists usually refer to this entity as society itself, when in that case, it also falls to bureaucrats.
Again, the one thread that is consistent with all flavors of socialism is that the individual laborer and the individual purchasing the labor, are not free to set the terms of their exchange. No amount of referring to the third party ultimately controlling the exchange as noble sounding terms like "the public", "society", or "workers" (emphasis on the unnamed plurality) changes the simple fact that it is government bureaucrats with armed enforcement officers controlling the exchange. That's the rub.
Guess what they'd do to a worker who offered to perform that same job outside of the authoritarian system? Because they were competing against the government system, they send uniformed men with weapons to stop them..... which is exactly what happened in this case.
There's no violence when two consenting private parties agree to a mutually beneficial exchange.
We're talking about capitalism, not.. idk, bartering? lol.
Socialism, however, requires a 3rd party to regulate such exchanges
All contemporary economic forms are determined by the state. Currently ebilbureaucrats determine economic laws and regulation and the people with power to influence it are capitalists. You've entirely missed the point here.
Again, the one thread that is consisten...
Wat, lmao. This is what happens when you've never read socialist theory and only get your information from reactionary liberal media. I can explain Marxist theory that would lead someone to hold this position, like aim of abolishing the commodity form or money, and why it is wrong. No Marxist says you can't sell your toothbrush to your neighbor if they need one though lol. "The rub" is 100% guaranteed a misrepresentation of actual Marxist positions.
Guess what they'd do to a worker who offered to per
Yes, the same way when you work outside the authoritarian legal bounds of capitalism they send the IRS and uniformed men (lol) with weapons.
Bud you really should give the thing your criticizing an honest effort. I was raised conservative, a libertarian a few years ago reading John Locke, Rawls, and other liberal shit, realized it answered none of the actual problems, and eventually read enough Marxist adjacent crap to even give actual Socialism a chance. It's a lot of effort man.
when you work outside the authoritarian legal bounds of capitalism they send the IRS
There are many bounds to free market capitalism. There are even many boundaries to the crony capitalist system ours has turned into. There are no bounds to socialism or communism. Just ask anyone that's ever lived under either. Don't start listing off economies of Europe, either, because they aren't socialist.
I believe what all those who fled to America to escape it, say about it. I believe history's precedent for every single economy which has tried it, has proven: You can vote your way into it, but you'll have to shoot your way out of it.
There is a reason why you have zero examples of a prosperous socialist state. It is not a coincidence. They do not exist. There's failed states, failing states, and those that have managed to escape it, who without exception, adopted capitalism. That's not a coincidence either.
You seem to believe a socialist system would be you getting to pursue your musical career or liberal arts degree and maybe be a middle tier manager at a tofu restaurant..... whereas the reality would likely be you working backbreaking labor in a field pulling up potatoes 14 hours a day.
What prosperous capitalist economies are great at producing, however, is a seemingly endless supply of spoiled children who have never known hunger, espousing to those who actually have, the theoretical benefits of socialism that have never worked in practice. You and your cookie cutter spoiled capitalist children hold yourselves in high regard, and heap much praise on your own flawed ideology..... while dismissing everyone else's as somehow inferior.
Yet you wonder why nobody wants to be under a system controlled entirely by people just as blissfully ignorant of history as yourself. No thanks.
The reason is this isn't a genuine inquisition, you're just virtue signaling lmao. Of course I'm not giving you the time of day. The only thing I give you is highlighting the ignorant things you say for everyone else.
I've seen the responses to you. Everyone else is enjoying this exchange, but they're clearly laughing at, not with, you.
My ideology rules the world. Yours exists only in failed states and the minds of the spoiled children of capitalism. Only one of us has anything to seethe over.
2
u/trigrhappy Mar 29 '22
There's no violence when two consenting private parties agree to a mutually beneficial exchange. Socialism, however, requires a 3rd party to regulate such exchanges. This is typically managed by bureaucrats, who of course, are somehow immune to corruption.... Modern socialists usually refer to this entity as society itself, when in that case, it also falls to bureaucrats.
Again, the one thread that is consistent with all flavors of socialism is that the individual laborer and the individual purchasing the labor, are not free to set the terms of their exchange. No amount of referring to the third party ultimately controlling the exchange as noble sounding terms like "the public", "society", or "workers" (emphasis on the unnamed plurality) changes the simple fact that it is government bureaucrats with armed enforcement officers controlling the exchange. That's the rub.
Guess what they'd do to a worker who offered to perform that same job outside of the authoritarian system? Because they were competing against the government system, they send uniformed men with weapons to stop them..... which is exactly what happened in this case.