The Morality of Socialism

Referring back to my initial argument, I made two important assumptions that you did not refute. Both of which stated that in this debate we would be arguing socialist reality rather than theory-- It's all fun and games to debate as to whether or not a utopian society could maintain a moral, socialist system, but in reality the grounds for debate are altered drastically. This distinction is important for several reasons: foremost of which, my concluding statement does not concede the argument, but simply points at fact-- it is of course not immoral to redistribute resources, which is what socialism essentially accomplishes. Since when is charitable exchange immoral? However, in order to apply socialism to the real world, to regulate this, coercion is necessary. There is no physical way to apply socialism to the real world without violating human rights. A good example of this would, ironically, be the event you referenced, Revolutionary Catalonia. Force was indeed used to maintain this system, as is stated in the very reference you posted. The fall of Catalonia, which occurred a mere two years later, was brought about largely by internal disputes and a resistance to force. Again, this is in your very source. Citing Revolutionary Catalonia is essentially citing the USSR or fascist Germany, as the "revolution" did not last nor was it carried through with peace. Revolutionary Catalonia suffered from what all socialist countries eventually suffer from: a need for force, to maintain socialist ideals. The only way socialist theory could ever be moral is if participation was optional, as coercion is an obvious breach of rights, which would be an immoral action. Once again, this debate is grounded in socialist reality rather than theory, as stated in the first round of argument. Socialist reality? Coercion is necessary to either remove those who do not wish such a system or to force said system onto any dissenters. There is no getting around the fact that in reality, there will never be any single populated country or community that agrees 100% on a single socialist policy. That is a fantasy, a utopia-- once again, Revolutionary Catalonia goes to prove this. In your debate, you used democracy repeatedly as a synonym with morality. This is blatantly wrong, as democracy is most certainly not a guarantee to a moral system. (Via a previously written essay) Ten children decide one day to take a trip to the local beach; after several hours of play and a rather strange turn of events, they find themselves stranded on an island in the middle of the Pacific. This island is completely deserted, our ten little friends are utterly alone. Naturally, the ten children decide to form a perfectly democratic government. All issues are now solved via a popular vote, complete with ballots and an election process. These issues range from how to ration food and erect a shelter to the more subtle aspects of survival, such as how to standardize healthcare or construct a border wall (When the Lemurs send their people, they"re not sending their best. They"re sending Lemurs that have lots of problems, and they"re bringing those problems with them. They"re bringing drugs. They"re bringing crime. They"re rapists.) Soon, however, this beautiful democracy begins to implode. Out of the ten children, six are boys" this means that by popular vote, all females must be banished from the island. This is perfectly fair; after all, the majority voted on it. The four girls are now forced to float into the Pacific on a raft made of bamboo, duct tape, and masculine ideals. Tyranny of the majority isn"t the only thing our friends must worry about. With only six remaining citizens, the government has a hard time solving the problem of dwindling rations. Two of the boys call for the privatization of the food industry, two speak of a redistribution of wealth, two call for the proletariat to "seize the means of production." The vote is deadlocked, even after a heated debate. The last straw for our budding government comes in yet another form of tyranny: a tyranny of the minority. Charles one day declares that from now on, he will identify as a Hammerhead Shark, and is therefore entitled to all the fish caught by the boys. Unfortunately, Hammerhead Sharks are carnivores and can therefore survive only on a diet of steady meat. Charles has a valid point" the rest of the boys must now live off of seaweed and gluten-free rolls. Democracy, in all it"s beauty, has come to be somewhat of a buzzword thrown in whenever Americans speak of liberty or patriotism. Few know of its implications, fewer still know understand its dangers. As our ten little friends now realize, democracy can grow to be a political cancer rather than cure if left to it"s own devices. Don"t take my word for it, take the Romans. Or the Greeks. Or the English. Or the Spanish, French, Austrians, Germans. Et cetera. Just because our said socialist society is democratic rather than governmentally regulated, does not equate to this said system being moral. Democracy simply means that if fifty-one people decide it is okay to forcefully take the forty-nine's property, it is justified, as this is what the majority wants. In conclusion, your two main points of morality are both examples of the natural immorality of socialism. Sourcing Revolutionary Catalonia is a great example of socialism's unsustainable nature, citing democratic socialism as a moral form or theory is full of errors and logical fallacies. Just because the majority of a people vote on the redistribution of wealth, this does not change the fact that there will still be those who do not wish such a system be forced upon them. In order to enforce any form of socialism, in the real world, a violation of autonomy and personal choice is necessary. On a further note, libertarian socialism is an oxymoron-- as a libertarian I assume you adhere to the non-aggression principle, yet as a socialist one would have to call for the eradication of private property. As stated above, utopias do not exist. Taking away an entire nation's private property would require the use of force. This is a violation of the non-aggression principle, how would a libertarian socialist get around this? Once again, we are debating socialism in the real world, not socialist theory.