07-08-2016, 01:20 PM
(This post was last modified: 07-08-2016, 01:59 PM by Eric the Green.)
(07-08-2016, 01:40 AM)Galen Wrote:(07-07-2016, 08:03 PM)Drakus79 Wrote:(07-07-2016, 07:23 PM)Eric the Obtuse Wrote: Socialism does not equal a totalitarian police state; that has developed under capitalism too.
It's developed under large scale socialist governments and large scale governments with mixed economies that tend towards crony-corporatism. Neo-liberal / Neo-con policies of big government lead towards a police state. Free market competition does not lead to a police state. When governments remains small and localized with fewer strict laws less people are disenfranchised, communities are more trusting of each other, and there's less of a need for surveillance and curtailing of rights.
Exactly my point. Simply because fewer people are getting pushed around by people with guns and uniforms which for some odd reason makes this behavior acceptable.
Our gun policies in America make for lots of people being pushing around and killed by people with guns.
Most of the police states have been capitalist, such as the Pinochet regime in Chile and the dictatorships which the USA supported in places like South Korea and Taiwan for many years, on the pretext that they weren't socialist. Many police states exist in Africa, enforced with corruption that puts all the wealth, generated by the land and sold to foreign capitalist enterprises, in the hands of the ruling elite. The fascists in Europe supported and depended upon the big capitalist industries that made the weapons and made the trains run on time, while people were required to work as they were told. Banana Republics in Latin America have been based on capitalist industries who owned all the land and shipped their wealth to the USA, which backed them up with military support. Antiquated regimes in the Middle East depend on western capital to keep the oil flowing into the royal coffers to help them keep down their people. No, capitalism has led to tyranny far more often than socialism.
Meanwhile under democratic socialism the people of northern and western Europe have been happy and their needs provided for without any diminution in human rights; in fact these states are the most supportive of human rights in the world.
Free markets lead to state oligarchy and tyranny. Free markets allow the most greedy and powerful to amass wealth and control the state. People who don't see this aren't paying attention. Just remember the video store businesses that popped up in the 80s and the coffee houses in the 90s. Remember the deregulation of radio stations. The ambitious and greedy quickly grabbed up the market and most other businesses were forced out. No, free markets create monopolies and oligarchies.
The only route to a free society is a state controlled and watched by the people. Without the state, previously smaller and weaker authorities gain power and take over, becoming the defacto state. Free enterprise ends; swallowed up by big corporations, and the little guys are trampled. Pollution, horrible working conditions, outsourcing and buyouts, financial swindles and crashes, and consumer rip offs are among the results. State regulation, anti-trust and fraud laws, and taxes, are all needed to keep the wealthy few from crushing the rights and livelihoods of the many.
But without public democratic involvement, state politicians become corrupt cronies and collude with those who have wealth and power. An activist people that can pressure and vote out corrupt politicians is the basis of a free society; otherwise it can't happen. Without this pressure, corrupt politicians pass laissez faire so that business can take over the country without restraint, and then they collude with these businesses to line their own pockets and boost their own power over the people.
Another possible route to freedom is employee and consumer ownership of businesses. I still think regulation and taxes are necessary though.