| SuaveSocialist said: 1A. That's how American society is structured, so that's how it would play out. Sure is a lot more practical an answer than laying out the systematic overhaul of all of American government/society and then using the exact same authority I'd previously mentioned, only with a Socialist State and government-run insurance company. 2. For the discourse to be intelligent, one must explain what those implications are owed to and how you reached that conclusion. All you did was read one thing and assume another. That's not "intelligent". Maybe I just unnecessarily hold myself to a higher intellectual standard. 3. "Based on, or in accordance with reason/logic". 4. Yes, I did use that terminology, and my statement, specifically because of your above clause that I highlighted in bold. 5. I am neither reformist nor revolutionary, yet my statement in 1B is still accurate. 6. And your capacity for rational thought. You had your chance. You blew it. Bye! |
1A. Case in point. You think that the capitalist class should control the workers until your chosen elite of bureaucrats can take their place as the dominant social class. State capitalism is not socialism. I suppose you're right in that it is practical though, practical to deprive the workers of their autonomy and to reduce the costs of any disagreements to such an order.
1B. No you're not. Unless you believe the working class should determine for itself whether or not it should be armed, you're not a socialist. Your first post cheered on corporate power over the interests of the common person to keep an alternative means of political action.
2. I explained quite well, you just chose to ignore it. The liberal-democratic state is controlled by the bourgeoisie and the state bureaucrats whom work for their interests. Their goal is to disarm the workers to make any revolutionary action less effective and to consequently make their rule less costly. Putting the power to "privilege" whom can or cannot own guns into the hands of the capitalist class necessarily means (by the very material interests of the capitalist class) the eventual disarmament of the working class. It is why Orwell and Marx both made it clear that the working class should not budge on this.
3. And I gave the reason. Which you will never address, because you don't honestly believe in socialist principles of worker control and democracy. Instead you propose that capitalist institutions dominate the common man, with no qualms in suggesting so.
4. Yet you didn't comprehend (or address) the actual statement made. Social protections can come from many different organizations. Merely having a large swath of the workforce refusing to allow themselves to be disarmed is an example of social protection. It has nothing to do with the concept of freedom pushed in your response.
5. That is a pretty nonsensical position. Either you believe gradual changes within capitalism and the liberal-democratic state are sufficient to achieve socialism (which makes you a reformist) or you believe revolution (of some kind) is necessary. These are how these positions have been defined in socialist literature and they are necessarily defined in a way so as they are mutually-exclusive and binary. You can take the position that you are a revolutionary who supports social reform, but that doesn't make you a reformist but a revolutionary who is okay with reforms until there are revolutions.
See ya again soon, SuaveStateCapitalist. Keep on the good fight for state-capitalism and the stamping out of worker's autonomy! Bye, bye!
