Question:
Why do today's capitalists believe that socialism advocates blind subservience to the state?
2010-07-21 11:09:40 UTC
No socialist/anarchist political/economic theorist ever wrote that the state must be blindly adhered to. Most emphasized the exact opposite, in fact. Take these quotes from Godwin, Marx, and Engels:

William Godwin: "Above all, we should not forget that government is an evil, an usurpation upon the private judgment and individual conscience of mankind; and that, however we may be obliged to admit it as a necessary evil for the present, it behooves us, as the friends of reason and the human species, to admit as little of it as possible, and carefully to observe whether, in consequence of the gradual illumination of the human mind, that little may not hereafter be diminished."

Karl Marx: "In place of the old bourgeois society the working class will set up, in the course of its development, the kind of association which excludes classes and their mutual opposition; there will no longer be any political power properly so-called, since it is political power which is the official expression of the opposition of classes within bourgeois society."

Friedrich Engels: "The victorious proletariat, like the commune (the Paris Commune), will be obliged immediately to lop off the worst sides of this evil, until a generation which has grown up in new free social conditions finds itself in a position to throw overboard all this clutter of statehood."

Karl Marx: "When there are no longer social classes which have to be kept in subjection, when there is no longer a rule of one class over another and a struggle for existence rooted in the present anarchy of production, when the clashes and violence resulting from it have been removed, then there will be nobody to crush and restrain, and then the necessity for state power, which at present performs this function, will vanish. The first act of the state will appear as the real representative of the whole society - the conversion of the means of production into social property - will be its last independent act in its capacity as a state. Intervention of state power in social relations will become gradually superfluous and will end of itself. The administration of men will be replaced by the administration of things and the management of the productive processes. The state is not "abolished", it dies away."

Friedrich Engels: "With the disappearance of classes the state will inevitably disappear. Society, which will organize production anew on the basis of a free and equal association of producers, will send the whole state machine to the place where it will then belong: to the museum of antiquities, along with the spinning-wheel and the bronze axe."

Friedrich Engels: "In the first place it (the Paris Commune) appointed to all official posts in administration, in the judiciary, in public education, persons elected by universal suffrage, and also introduced the right to recall those elected at any time by a decision of the electors. Secondly it paid to all officials from the highest to the lowest only the same wages paid to other workers."
____________________________________

So, given this, in what way can Socialism be likened to burdensome, oppressive government? And on a similar note, how can it call for the blind allegiance to the state? History is a fickle thing; a political leader can destroy a nation under the banner of "proletarian revolution", but just because they say it doesn't make it so. Thus, one must look to the theorists responsible for Socialism's formation, and disregard history's attempts as nothing but the seizure of power by cruel, authoritarian leaders under the pretenses of social revolution and equality.
Eleven answers:
Judicator
2010-07-21 11:12:39 UTC
Haven't read much from Engels and Godwin, but you must be kidding me if you are trying to convince me Marx is for individualism or anti-state.



Marx advocated socialism and communism through oppression and dictatorship, to achieve the last stage of communism, which ironically is suppose to be without either.



Also the capitalism/socialism division is on who controls the modes of production. Private vs public, individuals vs government, so in essence its about how much freedom individuals have in the market (fiscal freedom is the term used)
?
2010-07-21 18:38:25 UTC
Marxism is all about punishing people to help others but it goes against human nature.



People are not gonna say "Oh sure, so what if I work 16 hours a day 6 days a week? Take my earnings and give them to that lazy bum who refuses to work so he can blow it on drugs and alcohol".



Socialism kills incentive. Who would want to spend 8 years in college and 20 years of paying off their student loan to make the same amount as a McDonald's cashier?



Nobody would willingly adopt it. Go to any construction site or factory or anywhere where people work hard all day and ask the workers if they want their wages confiscated by the government and redistributed. I guarantee they'll say "Hell No".



That's where the government steps in and forces them through intimidation to obey and shut up. Crack open a history book and see what happened to dissenters or anyone they thought would cause trouble.
2010-07-21 18:13:36 UTC
Socialism inherently requires a state.

Stateless socialism is anarcho-syndicalism or utopian communism.

The system of socialism doesn't require blind obedience to the State

but in order for the system to function, the State must be big enough to support it and the more government there is, the more control there would be over the citizens.
Doc
2010-07-21 18:17:32 UTC
Comrade Trotsky! Is that you? I thought I put a bullet in your head decades ago! And who would you assume to have the power to enforce this over the masses? Eh? You?!! It will be only ME who determines what is "good" and needed. And for carrying such a heavy burden, I should be paid more. Ensuring that you and your minion can never get close enough to do me harm, I shall surround myself with an army of personal security personnel. To make sure they are above bribery, I will threaten their families and pay them far more than you can possibly imagine. I will demand ABSOLUTE loyalty or I shall have you shot in the back of the head!
Captain
2010-07-21 18:13:57 UTC
Socialism packages itself as everyone cares for everyone. The idea of the "collective." However, all that happens is that a totalitarian ruling class is spawned that uses fear and intimidation to keep everyone "in line." It's been proven time and time again throughout history.
2010-07-21 18:13:03 UTC
It does by definition. Since the state is providing for the good of the people. The state has to decide what is fair. It doesn't matter if its democratically elected. You are still subservient to the state in all matters of your life.
katmandu_85219
2010-07-21 18:17:02 UTC
Power corrupts and socialism gives too much power to the government.
Use facts not spin
2010-07-21 18:12:14 UTC
"Why do today's capitalists believe that socialism advocates blind subservience to the state?"

-------> Because it's true!



"Socialism is an economic and political theory based on public ( government ) or common ownership."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism
Alles leben ist Kampf
2010-07-21 18:14:00 UTC
Okay Marx. Let me tell you something. For your little dream to work, you would need to FORCE people to embrace socialism. How would you do this? By "reeducating" them.
Godless Heathen
2010-07-21 18:12:34 UTC
To be fair, they don't really know what socialism actually is.
sound_of_the_silenced3
2010-07-21 18:12:17 UTC
Because it has to employ FORCE to initiate it.


This content was originally posted on Y! Answers, a Q&A website that shut down in 2021.
Loading...