All Socialism Involves Slavery

Dec 2013
Beware of watermelons
I was confused. I was thinking of you as one of the good guys but some of the things you said made me doubt that.

I am glad we appear to have another agreement. How do we get the point across then? Our lives are being controlled by them and they are not exactly controlling in our favor, but they are exploiting us as they exploit natural resources. Trump was very clear about workers needing to accept lower wages to improve our economy, at the same time this improvement in our economy means less government support for public benefits. Why are people attacking socialism and defending what is happening when it clearly is not good for the people? I need to fear not attracking outside investors, instead of fear our dependency on them? I am not understanding the logic.

See, now is where you will see me as the bad guy. I have no problem if you want to try socialism over there. I dont think that the federal government should stop you. But i think it should be voluntary. I shouldn't be forced to chip in for your socialism over there. I have my own community to worry about over here and i would prefer mine to be laissez faire.

This i believe was the original intent for the states. Each state could operate autonomously. So if callifornia wanted to try something new they could. If you didn't approve you colud move.
Jul 2015
You think a college education is a waste of time?
What I actually wrote was: "Maybe your mistake was wasting time getting a college education." I wrote that in response to your statement that:

I did not get a college education to be a janitor, but during the recession hid my education to get a job so I could pay rent and support my children. Things were so bad, I consider supplementing my income with prostitution, but decided the social cost of doing that was too high. However, the cost of many years of poverty was also very high. Poverty is not a choice when the economy collapses and it is not the workers that cause the economy to collapse. Oh man, I have so many bad words to go with the idea that we are choosing how we survive.
Seems to me going to college did not work out for you, and you "hid" your education to get a job. But the fact is, your choices, got you to where you were, and they were so bad you even considered prostitution.

But what does your life's story have to do with socialism involving slavery? The fact is, using government force to take the product of one person's labor, which is then transferred to another for their personal economic needs, is an immoral use of government force.


The Democrat Leaders promise for free cheese doesn’t work in Cuba, doesn’t work in Venezuela ___ it only works for corrupted politicians who confiscate and then redistribute “free cheese” in order to buy votes and remain in power.
Jul 2015
See, now is where you will see me as the bad guy. I have no problem if you want to try socialism over there. I dont think that the federal government should stop you. But i think it should be voluntary. I shouldn't be forced to chip in for your socialism over there. I have my own community to worry about over here and i would prefer mine to be laissez faire.

This i believe was the original intent for the states. Each state could operate autonomously. So if callifornia wanted to try something new they could. If you didn't approve you colud move.
Excellent post!

Our wise founding fathers created a federal government with defined and limited powers which were never intended to encroach upon the internal affaires of the states. This was expressly summarized by Hamilton in Federalist Paper N0. 45 as follows:

The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected.

The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State."

If the people in California want to adopt socialism that's their freaken business, and I don't give two twits, so long as I am not taxed to finance their pie in the sky altruism, or to be more exact, their immoral use of government force.


The unavoidable truth is, the Bernie Sanders, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’, Andrew Gillum and Ayanna Pressley's socialist plan for “free” college tuition will be paid for by taxing millions of college graduates who worked for and paid their own way through college and are now trying to finance their own economic needs
Likes: Sabcat
Feb 2014
See, now is where you will see me as the bad guy. I have no problem if you want to try socialism over there. I dont think that the federal government should stop you. But i think it should be voluntary. I shouldn't be forced to chip in for your socialism over there. I have my own community to worry about over here and i would prefer mine to be laissez faire.

This i believe was the original intent for the states. Each state could operate autonomously. So if callifornia wanted to try something new they could. If you didn't approve you colud move.
:confused: I am confused. Democracy empowers the individual and I am speaking having more personal power not less. Under autocracy, the workers are subject to authority above them and they are powerless. You are arguing that we shouldn't mess this up because the property owners and only the property owners should have power without government interfering?
Nov 2005
You assign a position AND THEN ask a question from that position.
Jesus Sabcat.
These positions are real.
Do you deny that?

As i already said the school voucher proposal is a compromise.
Yet again, this is not refutation of the point I am making.
If I look at a house I can say it's "red". You can say it's "two-story".
The two are not contradictory.

You calling school vouchers a "compromise" does not refute the fact that it is pure hypocrisy. Does not refute the fact that the right label this generic behavior as "wealth distribution". Does not refute the fact that it's socialism.

Furthermore, to call it a "compromise" is stupid. If I don't like the local library I just don't go. I use other resources.
I don't demand that I be able to gut the library by taking away its books and funding and providing them for my children.
Nov 2005
So what's the difference between what this is and anarcho-capitalism?
Anarcho-capitalism (also known as “libertarian anarchy” or “market anarchism” or “free marketanarchism”) is a libertarian and individualist anarchistpolitical philosophy that advocates the elimination of the state in favor of individual sovereignty in a free market.
I would say the difference is the lack of elimination of "the state".

Well, the issue I have with such definitions is that they seem to be Orwellian newspeak oriented.
These are dictionary definitions.

It is the definition that's used here & if we look at the "word story" section, it mentions that its origin, along with the origins of the words socialism and communism, were coined around the same time in the mid 19th century.
Now let's take a look at a dictionary source from the earlier part of the 19th century; it doesn't have the word "capitalism", but it has the word "capital" & it shows us that it's essentially derived from the word "head". In an economic sense, it's showing us that it basically refers to stock, so maybe we can also coin the word "stockism" to mean the same thing. Anyways, it's referring to money put into a business & it makes no distinction or limitation to being public or private, or the state vs an individual, etc.
I am going to be using the current dictionary definitions. I have no interest in reverting to a historic definition.
If you don't want to, then this conversation isn't going too far.

Now, let's go to one other thing: State capitalism - Wikipedia
You can see in the 1st paragraph where it makes the claim that attempts to establish socialism failed & resulted in establishing state capitalism. The word "failed" is another word being used as newspeak propaganda, here; socialism is state capitalism. It's not a failure, it's just its normal outcome.
That section starts with "some people argue" ...
As I said, socialism and capitalism exist on a spectrum. I know of no purely socialist or purely capitalist example.
China is not purely socialist.

I would content "state capitalism" describes a portion of the spectrum and should not be confused with saying anything about capitalism being socialism or vice versa.
The third paragraph presents an interesting contrast for this point.
Libertarian socialist Noam Chomsky applies the term "state capitalism" to economies such as that of the United States, where large enterprises that are deemed "too big to fail" receive publicly funded government bailouts that mitigate the firms' assumption of risk and undermine market laws and where the state largely funds private production at public expense, but private owners reap the profits.[13][14][15] This practice is often claimed to be in contrast with the ideals of both socialism and laissez-faire capitalism.[16]
Ergo, both China and the U.S. could be economically classified under the same umbrella of "state capitalism"???
Obviously, there's more going on here...

So basically the definition you're pointing out is designed to be the foundation of propaganda & isn't compatible with reality; that's why I don't go by it & instead go by what seems to make much more sense to me.
How are the two dictionary definitions I pointed to "propaganda"?
These are the universally accepted terms / definitions.
You are the one coming to the table with a puzzle piece that is uniquely your own and demanding it be used instead.

Regardless, that's what's the effect is bound to be, so it might as well be & that's why I worded it that way.
First off, you were alleging other people's motivations falsely.
Secondly, you are now shifting to claiming that's what the effect actually is (which is very different than alleging what a motivation is).
Finally, the incentive needs to be carefully evaluated for effectiveness. Some incentive methods can be counter-productive.

It isn't necessarily to gut public schools, but if they're doing poorly they need to be gutted - at least on a case-by-case basis.
School vouchers, in taking money away from a school education system, will gut public schools. Period.
And worse, it does not matter as to whether or not that school is actually doing poorly in the first place. There is nothing in the proposed school voucher system which only damages the "bad" schools.

Same with education; students have to go somewhere to get their edjumacation, so if it's not one school it'll be another. Same with teachers working at a school to teach; if they don't work at one public school they'll work at either another public school or one that isn't a public school; either way they'll be able to teach and get a paycheck.
Honestly, it's the students having access to the school and not having to be bused an excessive amount of time to get to "the next school" that has my primary concern.
Furthermore, at this stage you're blindly tossing out allegations with absolutely no evidence.
Nov 2005
Public schools won't likely get gutted if they'll compete, and they will compete if they have to.
HOW would this competition even be implemented by the schools in the first place?
Part of your problem is that there is no guarantee that the choice to use a voucher and go to a school will be used for a "better" school in the first place. If a school had ten students whose parents just wanted to send their kids to a religious school, that would be totally viable.

Such comments indicate a blind adherance to capitalism with no appreciation for how the "market" actually works. How the "supply and demand" of schools actually play out in reality.

It may not necessarily be that it has lousy teachers, administrators, principals, or superintendents; I have no doubt that just about everyone involved in an education career cares about doing their best in their profession & they care about their students. Any problems with a school or school district could be with the politicians higher up that food chain, who aren't helping the public school districts that they're responsible for, to get what they need to function well. Without that voucher, the students have no choice but to go to a school regardless of whether it's in good shape or bad shape. With that voucher, the funding resources get redirected to a school that's in better shape than one that's in bad shape & the one that's in bad shape will lose its funding & as a result get gutted. That's what should happen, just like a business that sells shoddy merchandise nobody wants will eventually get gutted by free market forces.
These comments on "choice" are pure propaganda.
Let's shift it to another conversation. Why stop here?
Does a lower-middle-class kid have a "choice" in their food?
Shouldn't we take money away from tax payers in order to ensure that kids get a "choice" in whether they eat sushi or escargot or caviar?
After all, won't this just spur "competition"?

The choices are spurred on by a parent's choices and income.
There is no intelligent reasoning by demanding that the government shell out tax-payer money in order to compensate for a kid having parents who either can't pay for or don't want to pay exclusively for a private education.

Furthermore, the most absurd part of this is I have never seen any school voucher program which requires the private school that receives the voucher to be "better" than the public school that gets the money taken away.
That is the most effective proof of the absurdity of your argument.

The funding for vouchers comes from taxpayer money, just like the funding for roads comes from taxpayer money. I don't consider having roads a form of socialism; for the same reason I would argue that vouchers are not a form of socialism.
Since you refuse to acknowledge simple dictionary definitions, there is no point in me arguing the reality of words with you...

You mean other than with the link posted in the OP?
All Socialism Involves Slavery
It is another example of attempting to abuse the meaning of a word for propagandic purposes.
I already gave the meaning of "slavery".

foundit66 said:
slavery: the state of being a slave.
slave: a person who is the legal property of another and is forced to obey them
Saying "Ok" would repudiate the OP article.

Yes it does. Just because it doesn't specify that there's one individual involved doesn't mean it isn't; in the case of socialism it happens to be the notion that each individual person is the legal property of the collective.
This is propagandic b.s.
If a person is my legal property, I get to make the choices for that person. I dictate what that person can / cannot do.
Even worse, I get to make choices as to whether that person continues to live or not. A slave-owner could kill a slave without repercussions.
People are not "legal property" in all forms of socialism.

In practice, the way it's implemented, the only way it can be implemented, there is in fact an individual & that individual would be the despot who rules a socialist nation. In North Korea, it's Kim Jong Un. In Red China, it's Xi Jinping, their leader for life. In Cuba, it was Fidel Castro quite a long time. In the Soviet Union, it was Stalin for a long time. In Nazi Germany, it was Hitler. In Cambodia it was Pol Pot. I knew 2 different individuals who defected from socialist Hungary (one I knew where I worked and the other I met through college, they're not related and don't know each other); they could've been shot and killed if they were caught sneaking out. What's more solid proof that one's a slave than the fact that they can be shot and killed if they try to escape? That's what's done to prisoners; would you be happier if they were called prisoners, instead of slaves? What's the difference? They're both just about as bad a thing to be subjected to just for being born.
You're making a mistake of generalization.
Socialism CAN involve slavery.
I am arguing against the claim that ALL socialism involves slavery.

Unless you are going to claim that the examples you gave are the only examples of "socialism"?
Last edited:
Feb 2014
I think terms are being used so loosely in this thread they are meaningless. It was not that long ago when women and children were subject to the will of the man who traditionally was the head of the household. In the pioneer days, females by age 14, were basically forced to marry men looking for someone to do their cooking and cleaning. One of these women was recorded by a journalist who recorded pioneer stories and put them in a book. This particular woman was distressed by the fact the north and south fought a war over slavery and nothing was done about the slavery women were experiencing, and we are not that far from that past and women are still bristling about gender injustices. Now I am trying to understand how the word slave is being used in the context of arguments about socialism.

From my point of view, as long as we have autocratic industry and laissez-faire capitalism, we have a form of slavery. That point of view is built on being a woman, and I think it is worth noting images of liberty and female.
Feb 2014
The argument about education makes no sense. What is the criteria for success? It is not high test scores. People who understand education know scoring high on test does not equal having an understanding of anything. And what is the purpose of education and what knowledge is being tested? Across the country, we have schools serving different purposes and we have parents who have different values, sending their children to schools that match their values.

There are many different philosophies about education, and a popular one is advancing liberal values. Now it would make senses to argue if that is right or wrong, but does not make sense of argue as though there is universal agreement about what a good education means.
Jul 2015
:confused: I am confused. Democracy empowers the individual . . .

Yes. Your are confused. Democracy empowers the mob and not the individual and rights associated with property ownership.

And just what did our Founding Fathers think of “democracy”? Madison, in Federalist No. 10 says in reference to “democracy” they

"…have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths. Theoretic politicians, who have patronized this species of government, have erroneously supposed that by reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political rights, they would, at the same time, be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions, and their passions."

And during the Convention which framed our federal Constitution, Elbridge Gerry and Roger Sherman, delegates from Massachusetts and Connecticut, urged the Convention to create a system which would eliminate "the evils we experience," saying that those "evils . . .flow from the excess of democracy..."

And, then there was John Adams, a principle force in the American Revolutionary period who also pointed out "democracy will envy all, contend with all, endeavor to pull down all; and when by chance it happens to get the upper hand for a short time, it will be revengeful, bloody, and cruel..."

And Samuel Adams, a signer of the Declaration of Independence and favoring the new Constitution as opposed to democracy declared: "Democracy never lasts long” . . . "It soon wastes, exhausts and murders itself.". . . "There was never a democracy that ‘did not commit suicide.’"

And during the Constitutional Convention, Hamilton stated: "We are a Republican Government. Real liberty is never found in despotism or in the extremes of Democracy."

And then there was Benjamin Franklin, who informed a crowd when exiting the Convention as to what system of government they created, he responded by saying "A republic, if you can keep it."

Democracy, or majority rule vote, as the Founding Fathers well knew, whether that majority rule is practiced by the people or by elected representatives, if not restrained by specific limitations and particular guarantees in which the unalienable rights of mankind are put beyond the reach of political majorities, have proven throughout history to eventually result in nothing less than an unbridled mob rule system susceptible to the wants and passions of a political majority imposing its will upon those who may be outvoted, and would result in the subjugation of unalienable rights, and especially rights associated with property ownership and liberty [witness the recent Kelo case]. And so, our Founding Fathers gave us a constitutionally limited Republican Form of Government, guaranteed by Article 4, Section 4 of the Constitution of the United States.


"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

Similar Discussions