subscribe or follow us:                    

Socialism Is Not The Enemy The Right Wing Is

8 comments

Posted by PunkJohnnyCash on Oct 23, 2010 in Agorism, Anarchism, direct action, video | 8 comments

Bread and RosesThere is a strong dialogue in the U.S. speaking against ‘Socialism’ it is for the most part misguided. The definition of socialism that you will hear from those who speak out against it most often is a hypocritical one. This is the definition that equates shared resources with the force of the state. The few who have a non-hypocritical stance on this would be the anarcho-capitalists. Far too many who preach against state-socialism will take the strongest stance for state-socialism in areas of police, defense, roads and more. These critics of socialism seldom if ever even address forms of socialism that are much more anti-statist than their conservative perspective. Market Socialism, Anarchist forms of socialism and other forms of radical socialism that do not embrace redistribution through a state are not often spoken of.

So, what is the problem with socialism? The same problem of socialism is the problem found in capitalism or any other form of government. It is the power of the state. Outside of the setting of a state removed from the aggressive coercive force of the state socialism will present a larger amount of liberty. State-Socialism is a danger just as State-Capitalism is. It is power by the archaic and barbaric ordering of society by the sword over voluntary interactions that is dangerous.

The American conservative right attacks socialism and communism as a definitive evil while disregarding the evil within the state-capitalist system they embrace. This is often found with conservatives, republicans, tea party supporters and some minarchists. If you listen to their rhetoric you may get the feeling that giving to the needy and providing for the poor is somehow the evil of the state. Nothing could be further from the truth. I would argue that social welfare of the state is insufficient and we need more. Every time the state made a benevolent attempt to help a people group that was oppressed or downtrodden these groups have lashed out screaming “Hitler!” “Evil Socialist!”

Giving to the poor or caring for the oppressed is not the ‘danger of big government’ they seem to think it is. The danger is the government agents holding the guns. The danger is not in the tax itself, but the force used to gather taxes. It is the power of the Police and the Military where the problem lies. If you feel there is justification to tax and cage those who would choose not to pay their taxes then you must see some sort of use for the state. If you see a use for the state and feel the only use is to kill and not to care for others I take a major issue with that stance. If your state is so good that you do not wish to end it then why is it good enough to build your highways and to police your streets to subsidize your suburbs and wal-marts but not care for the ‘welfare mothers’?

No, the problem with Any state lies in the crux of the state the aggressive force that the state uses to enforce it’s will. The opposition to state is not in the poor receiving inadequate care. We need to care for those people more. We need a more sufficient system. This system will not be brought by some state.

The problem is the state-socialism that the right wing does condone. They wish to continue rule by force, taxation to perpetuate Police the foundation of the state. The problem is not those struggling that take what is offered to them by the state, the problem is the state using it’s state-socialized police force to enforce it’s will. Once you eliminate the crux of state power which is the police and military you will eliminate all forced taxation enforced with the threat of force. This will end the states involvement with anything. We should build a more efficient system to care for others without force and violence.

Any conservative or minarchist that sees the oppressed and powerless as the threat has been blinded by statist apolagetics. The threat they fear will stay present until they can see the root of tyranny. As long as they are blinded by the myth that the force of the state is somehow preferable to protection they will be the tyrants and enablers of empires. While you defend the empire I will stand with the workers marching for their Bread and Roses, Agora, Anarchy, Action!

Enhanced by Zemanta

Youths get taste of law-enforcement jobs

Deseret News (Salt Lake City) September 5, 2009 | Pat Reavy Deseret News Tam Ly is only 14. But the West High School sophomore already knows what she wants to do when she gets older.

“Ever since I was 5, I’d watch ‘America’s Most Wanted’ with my grandmother,” said Ly, and the show motivated her to want to work for the FBI.

Dreams of becoming a police officer, firefighter or athlete are common among young children. Now, Salt Lake police want to not only encourage but also help youths make their law enforcement visions become a reality. site law enforcement jobs

The department has restarted its Explorer program after the program’s absence for a couple of years because of budget cuts. The program allows juveniles to experience what law enforcers do by letting them go on ride-alongs and by putting them through some of the same training that real officers go through.

In addition, participants, some of them at-risk youths, receive mentoring and are taught how to give back to their communities with service projects.

“The goal is to show these kids what life as a police officer is all about. Hopefully, after they’ve finished college and turned 21, they’ll be our next generation of sworn and civilian recruits,” said Detective Pat Wilkinson, program liaison.

Recently, Wilkinson went to West High School, where Salt Lake Police Detective Cody Logey teaches a vocational law enforcement class, to tell students about the program.

Several students said they were seriously considering a future career in law enforcement.

Stefan Arbutina, 14, said the idea of “people helping other people” appeals to him. So does the “action” a law enforcer faces, said Arbutina, who wants to join the Utah Highway Patrol. Arbutina also has a brother who was in the POST academy. website law enforcement jobs

For 14-year-old Logan Smith, the goal to be a law enforcer came mostly from wanting to follow in the footsteps of his father and two uncles, all of whom were police officers.

“My dad says it’s really fun,” Smith said.

Smith, who wants to be on the SWAT team when he gets older, has been on ride-alongs with his father and watched people get arrested. He, too, likes the idea of a job that helps keep people safe.

The program is open to young people between the ages of 14 and 20 who have completed the eighth grade and have at least a 2.0 grade- point average. There are only 30 to 35 openings available. Each applicant must write a half-page to a page on why they want to be an Explorer.

“It’s an excellent way to find out, ‘Is this the career I want to get into,’ ” Logey said.

Explorer participants will get to take part in a simulated shoot- don’t shoot scenario (“It’s a $90,000 video game,” Wilkinson said), rappel off a building and go on ride-alongs.

Currently, the Sandy Police Department is the only other agency that has an Explorer program. The Sandy officers have been running theirs since 1976.

“It definitely gives them an advantage and a step up,” said program adviser and detective Bart Webb, a former Explorer himself.

Salt Lake City police officer Mike Cardwell was also in the Explorer program. He was 19 and working a security job at the time and was considering a move to a full-time law enforcement career.

“I knew what I wanted to do. (The program) certainly made it a lot easier decision,” he said. “I’m glad to see it’s coming back.” Explorer applications can be found at www.slcpd.com/joinourteam/ explorers.html and returned to Salt Lake City Police Headquarters, near 200 South and 300 East.

Pat Reavy Deseret News

Comments

Powered by Facebook Comments

  • anonymous 6667

    “State capitalism” is redundant because capitalism forms and supports states. Market Anarchism and Agorism are “anti-state” only because the state is a competing power that interferes with the ability of the rich to make profits. Again, there is nothing in market anarchism, agorism or any other form of libertarian capitalist ideology that prevents the formation of corporations, monopolies or other forms of ad-hoc authoritarian states. Whether these states call themselves “Italy,” “Egypt,” “Monsanto” or “The Democratic People’s Republic of Microsoft-Boeing” is irrelevant– they operate as authoritarian entities that enforce rules and laws that exist specifically to perpetuate their existence.

    Trading the tyranny of the state for the tyranny of the market is not anarchism, and advocating for such action under the guise of promoting anarchism is a bald-faced lie.

    • Charles

      So, is it McDonald’s or the government that breaks down citizens’ doors at 3 a.m. in the morning? 

      • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=690704754 Eddy Hartanto

        Without the government businesses can simply hire thugs to take your stuff.  Businesses (so far) cannot directly initiate force against you but they can indirectly coerce you by controlling all the important resources you need to survive. Theoretically you don’t have to use any particular business’s property, but if all the important resources were owned by businesses then you’ll have to choose between different businesses, or you can “exercise your freedom to starve to death”, what’s the difference here with choosing between different states?  All your talk is just strawmanning, emphasizing obvious direct coercion while  willfully neglecting to mention indirect (therefore more insidious) coercion.

      • Anonymous

        Suppose you’re an employee of McDonalds who was caught on video stealing money from the register.

        When the police break down your door at 3am to arrest you for larceny against McDonalds — the answer to your question is BOTH.

    • Charles

      To make sure you understand the point of my first post, I’m pointing out that businesses cannot initiate force against me to make me use their property; government can. (True, businesses and government do work together to take my stuff, but businesses could not do that on their own. That’s why they have to work with the government to do it.)

      You need to start with definitions. You seem to think that a philosophy that advocates freedom and not using force against others is the same thing as an authoritarian state. You define something as its opposite and then say that’s what it is. That makes no sense.

      • Anonymous

        Well, the ideology “advocates” not using force against others; but that is because it utilizes a highly particular concept of “force” which excludes enforcing borders with guns.

    • http://www.facebook.com/antifascism Matt D. Harris

      Most anarchists are market anarchists.  I don’t see how you can lump market anarchists in with capitalists.  It doesn’t make any sense.  Anarchism is inherently anti-capitalist.  Do you even understand market anarchism? 

      I mean, I agree with the rest of your points, but you’re conflating “markets” with “capitalism” which is confusing.  

    • http://www.facebook.com/antifascism Matt D. Harris

      Most anarchists are market anarchists.  I don’t see how you can lump market anarchists in with capitalists.  It doesn’t make any sense.  Anarchism is inherently anti-capitalist.  Do you even understand market anarchism? 

      I mean, I agree with the rest of your points, but you’re conflating “markets” with “capitalism” which is confusing.