Is a socialist state necessarily a police state?

[Foreign Devil]

First of all I hope you know not all poor people are "non-productive". Some of them work their tails off just to make ends meet and still barely survive. And they're supporting children or relatives too. The working poor sweat a lot more than stock brokers and others in the "productive" class.

Now just because some countries don't accept our own version of the free market does not automatically doom them to totalitarianism. There are countries that maintain a socialist or quasi socialist economic system that have managed to refrain from turning into police states. Civil liberties are fairly well protected in western europe and scandanavia. Expansion of the government in the economic sphere does not parallel a rise in police state tactics over there.

 

[longrifleman]

Art:
Regardless of the benevolent view of the individual policeman, you wind up with governmental controls of individual actions at all levels of endeavor.

And that's a police state.
-------------------------------------------------------------

To continue;
At some point a % of the population will start to object to the infringement
on their lives (maybe even in Europe). The people in power don't take kindly to their will being challenged. Then the police state will really get into gear and we know how effecient that can be in Europe.

When your socialist/welfare state starts to collapse from the inevitable economic failure that socialism always brings, the normal response seems to be to look for scapegoats. The last go-round in Europe targeted the Jews. From some reports we get here it may be them again. If not them, it may well be the business class, given the outright hatred socialists have for them.

On the original question you can certainly have a police state without socialism but I don't think a socialist state will last too many years without becoming a police state. Somebody has to make sure that everyone has the exact same number of mouldy bread crusts.

 

[The Real Hawkeye]

Well said, Art.

 

[The Real Hawkeye]

There are countries that maintain a socialist or quasi socialist economic system that have managed to refrain from turning into police states.

Give it time. Those societies have only been socialistic for a split second in the history of civilization. Unless they turn back, they will ultimately become police states. Give it another couple of generations.

Civil liberties are fairly well protected in western Europe and Scandinavia. Expansion of the government in the economic sphere does not parallel a rise in police state tactics over there.

My understanding is that the police in European nations may ask anyone for their identification at any time, for any reason, and may search you or your vehicle at any time, for any reason. Isn't this a police state tactic? The people in those countries have been disarmed by their governments, so what ever liberties they now possess will not last long. Every government which has disarmed its populous, within a relatively short period of time, will impose tyranny on them. Human beings in positions of unchecked power will inevitably abuse that power. The word for a society where the police are authorized by government to use their arms to disarm the population at large is a "police state."

 

[Silver Bullet]

My rant was probably better directed towards communist countries, rather than socialist. The killer examples of the superiority of capitalism over communism are the two Germanys when the East was communist, and North and South Korea today.

I think some posters here make interesting points about the European countries. If they have free and honest elections, then they are probably a free people, as a whole. Taking Sweden as an example, how pervasive is the socialist aspect of their society ? Are they 100% socialist, or only 10% socialist ? To what extent are their personal freedoms (as we know them in the U.S.) curtailed ? I would expect that their production efficiency goes down with increased socialism. Perhaps they are only 5% socialist; for example, state-run medical care with everything else free market.

Perhaps a High Roader in one of those countries can provide some insight.

 

[SemperFi83]

Wow, that 's a lot of talkin' just to decide whether you want to be boiled in oil or boiled in water..................

 

[SemperFi83]

The killer example of capitalism over communism is West vs East Germany???? How about the United States vs USSR???? without a definite end to that wrestling match, East and West Germany would still have a line drawn down the middle. Sorry, but I don't see how East Germany brought West Germany to the light all on its own...

 

[cloudkiller]

Another view

In poli-sci class we called what we have in the US and in Europe "Mixed Market". We are mixed to varying degrees between capitalist and socialist models. More so in Europe than in the US, though the US will probably head more economically towards the European Model over time in order to try to maintain some equity in a time of unprecendented wealth concentration into a few hands. Don't be surprised if additional redistribution via taxation isn't implemented here to keep all the $7.00/hr wal mart workers from rioting against the CEOs who get bonuses for cutting their health benefits.

Insofar as genocide goes, capitalism does that quite well also. You can't POSSIBLY live in the United States and argue that our economic model doesn't have a history of genocide also. There is a book out called
"World on Fire" that makes a pretty strong case that the formation of powerful ethnic minorities due to globalist/capitalist expansion is behind a lot of the recent genocides in the world. The key is when you have a group that is financially powerful enough to influence government policy to its advantage. This isn't officially the result of a mixed market or socialism, but rather a hidden result of both hands in the economic pot.

The biggest problem with Socialism IMO isn't directly political, but economic. The systems are so innefficient they go bankrupt trying to meet social goals with economic policies. The political repression takes place when people protest the economic collapse brought on by these artificially supported systems. For example, there is NO WAY that the Western European model could have supported the continent through the Cold War without US defense subsidies. That being said, I wouldn't say people in Western Europe live in Police States. That is taking things waaaay to far

 

[Art Eatman]

cloudkiller, when you look at the body of law surrounding the anti-drug efforts and the anti-terror efforts, and include such things as the changes in the use of such once-narrower laws as RICO, the only thing between the US and a police state is the attitude of the Congress and the Administration.

By "attitude" I mean that "They" don't regard the public at large as serfs or as an enemy to be restrained by force. There's no inherent objection to "just folks" doing pretty much whatever they please in daily life.

Looking back toward the administrative behavior in Nazi Germany, I think that therein existed a general distrust of the loyalties toward the regime on the part of the average citizen. Paranoia. Here, I really doubt that TPTB* believe that the average citizen doesn't love this country.

Art

* TPTB: The Powers That Be, for those not having run across this.

 

[Zundfolge]

A socialist state owns all property, employs all people, and effectively owns all people. But the populace watches each other.

Eventually EVERY slave master, now matter how benevolent, will decide the slaves need a beating.



I believe that socialism/communism can work, but only in one specific situation and that situation is a Small agrarian theocracy

It has to be small ... less then 10,000 people because otherwise the bureaucracy gets out of hand and becomes oppressive. It has to be agrarian in nature because industrial and post-industrial economies require large numbers of people, and either a free market or an "out of hand and oppressive" bureaucracy to function. And it has to be a theocracy because the only way people will willingly live under communism is if they believe they are doing it out of obedience to God (or to avoid hell).

 

[Silver Bullet]

How about the United States vs USSR?

North and South Korea is a much better example, because here are two people of one culture, probably identical resources, where the only things different (the "control") are the economic and political systems. They started out exactly alike before taking their different paths.

 

[Silver Bullet]

there is NO WAY that the Western European model could have supported the continent through the Cold War without US defense subsidies.

An excellent observation.

 

[Deavis]

Art

Looking back toward the administrative behavior in Nazi Germany, I think that therein existed a general distrust of the loyalties toward the regime on the part of the average citizen. Paranoia. Here, I really doubt that TPTB* believe that the average citizen doesn't love this country.

Are you saying that the average German was coerced into following the governments lead? I'm just trying to figure out your point on this one.

 

[13A]

Stick around. We'll find out here in the next few decades. Who can deny we are becoming a socialist country?

 

[fix]

Socialism/Communism works great at my house. Of course, it is supported by a benevolent dictator who secures all funding for social programs by working for a capitalist.

 

[mhdishere]

Bear with me here, it's been a long time since college!

I recall a college Philosophy course I took, one of the books we did was the Communist Manifesto. (The prof was a dedicated communist, liberal, and athiest). Here's some of what I recall:

Communism is the ultimate goal, Socialism is a means of gaining that goal. Socialism is supposed to be a temporary stage as the nation "grows" from Capitalism to Communism.

During the Socialist stage, there will be people who object to the growth to Communism (mostly those nasty people who actually own the factories and make money of the saints who work the machines). So it will be necessary for the government to control education, media, etc etc in order to educate the people that Communism is truly the way to go. (Basically, brainwashing). People need to be controlled for their own good.

So I'd say that yes, a truly Socialist society (meaning one that's moving toward Communism) would have to be a police state, where the people are under the complete control of the government for their own best interests.

The idea is that under Communism the powers the government took would be released, since we now have a society of good Communists who WANT to live in a workers Utopia.

In practice, what government, once given such power over the populace ever voluntarily relinquishes it?

In practice, there will always be people who want to control other people. These are the people who often end up in government.

I remember my prof explaining to us very sincerely that the government would have to take control of the mass media (there goes free speech) because under socialism you couldn't afford to have people questioning the actions of the government. After all, it's for the people's own good. Typical BS, I know what's good for you, you don't so just be quiet and let me make you into the type of person you ought to be.

 

[dustind]

Well if Benito Mussolini thinks socialism is a good thing than maybe I have been wrong all along. How can any of us disagree with such a great caring man like Benito Mussolini.

Saying some of the more socialist countries in Europe are not police states would be like saying that a farm is not a police state in the perspective of the animals living there. Sure the animals are more or less happy at times, well fed, but they are not free, and they live at the pleasure of the farmer, they have no choice or control over their own lives or destiny.

 

[Foreign Devil]

Those "socialist farm animals" of Europe choose their form of government in free and fair elections, and enjoy substantial civil liberties.

It's pretty arrogant to say that they're just cattle at the mercy of their governments, and they just can't comprehend how oppressed they really are.

 

[Angus MacDuff]

Finland and Norway or socialist states, but they do not have a Patriot Act or the Powers that we have. Also I would argue that a Fascist state is a police state and we are closer to a police state than the Scandinavians are.

Get rid of the PA and restore the first, fourth, fifth, sixth, ninth and tenth amendments to their former power and then we would be further from a police state.

An example of a police state occurred three weeks ago on the Detroit river when three Canadians fishing on the river did not produce I-68 visas. Prior to the PA only boats landing on US soil or ports needed a Visa. These three unfortunate Canadians have been held in MI jail for three weeks without due process (against the bill of rights). See below for more specific example of the beginning of a police state. Then imagine if Canadians did the same to three USA boaters.

That is where we are at now early police state



THE WINDSOR STAR
Latest News

Boaters languish in U.S. jail
3 Windsor men held for three weeks after being caught on water without papers

Dave Battagello
Windsor Star

June 25, 2004


Three Windsor men locked up for almost three weeks in a Michigan county jail have discovered how crossing the U.S. border on area waterways without identification can lead to big trouble.

Jamie Napier, 25, Raymond Caza, 26, and Shawn Damsgard, 24, took Napier's new boat out for a spin on the Detroit River June 7. Near the end of the cruise, the group was pulled over on the Detroit side near the Belle Isle bridge by the U.S. Coast Guard for exceeding the speed limit.

When it was discovered the ill-prepared boaters could not produce an I-68 visa -- required for boaters to cross the U.S. border -- they were quickly taken to the U.S. Homeland Security's immigration office in Detroit.

Unable to produce identification of any kind to U.S. authorities, they were shipped soon after to Calhoun County Jail near Battle Creek, Mich.

And that's exactly where the three local men have remained for almost three weeks, despite the best efforts of the Canadian Consulate General's office in Detroit to help out.

"The Canadian government knows they are there and have been in touch with them daily," said Beth Ann Spence, senior consular officer for the Canadian Consulate. "We are doing all we can to get them back as quickly as possible."

She said the three have remained locked up for such a lengthy period in part due to their own poor decision of not carrying any identification, but also because of bad timing.

Spence said there are only two U.S. immigration deportation officers covering the Detroit area. One has been off work because of a death in the family, while the other was away on vacation for a few weeks until Tuesday.

"That has been part of the problem," Spence said. "This couldn't have happened at a worse time for these three."

A hearing was held June 17 in front of a U.S. immigration judge, according to the U.S. Executive Office for Immigration Review, who ordered the three be deported from the country.

"There is an order by the judge for them to be removed and it has been turned back to the immigration agency for their removal," said Elaine Komis, spokeswoman for the agency in Virginia. "As far as the removal process, we don't know how much time that will include. I know there is paperwork involved."

Spence said the Canadians had to wait until Tuesday for the Detroit deportation officer to return to work, then were requested to produce birth certificates -- copies of which have to be sent to a U.S. immigration deportation liaison officer in Ottawa.

"The liaison officer wants to see proof they are Canadian before they are released," Spence said. "They have to say to Detroit 'we have seen the documents go ahead and release them.'

"But so far, only one of them (Caza) has a birth certificate. The other two haven't produced one yet."

SEND WARNING

Spence said the case should send a warning to every Canadian how the rules of crossing the border into the U.S. have changed -- especially since the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.

"When crossing the international border into the U.S., it became a whole different ballgame," she said. "People forget that sometimes. It happens because our border has been so friendly.