Do Socialists Understand That We Also Dream?...

Jul 2009
5,880
Port St. Lucie
That is what I believe is the fundamental distinction between those who put their faith in government rather than individuals. Ronald Reagan spoke of this and if you would like to hear his explanation, here is the link http://obamacarefail.com/?p=365
Socialism is a libertarian (and in some cases anarchist) ideological and economic school of thought. So as to the bolded, all I can say is you have a poor understanding of socialism.
 

myp

Jan 2009
5,841
Socialism is a libertarian (and in some cases anarchist) ideological and economic school of thought. So as to the bolded, all I can say is you have a poor understanding of socialism.
No it's not. The only exception maybe is libertarian socialism, but that is not what comes to most people's minds upon hearing the term "socialism" (and it is not the definition generally used in the academic and mainstream spheres today.)
 
Jul 2009
5,880
Port St. Lucie
No it's not. The only exception maybe is libertarian socialism, but that is not what comes to most people's minds upon hearing the term "socialism" (and it is not the definition generally used in the academic and mainstream spheres today.)
With respect, you know full well the Cold War propaganda definition that insists that totalitarian dictatorships are socialist has nothing to do with the democratic, worker oriented views of major socialist/communist thinkers.

The closest thing to truth that comes out of that is that brutal and bloody revolutions are needed for socialism to take effect and that's only the case for advocates of violent revolution.
 
Jun 2010
157
Much I liked about Reegan. I have no illusions about what was cold war propganda though. Umm, nobody had a problem with the Goverment organsations like, CIA, DoD. Or goverment members like Weinberger and Schultz. Everybody has faith in the goverment, when its their guy behind the wheel.
 
Aug 2010
92
NH
Socialism is a libertarian (and in some cases anarchist) ideological and economic school of thought. So as to the bolded, all I can say is you have a poor understanding of socialism.
No it's not. The only exception maybe is libertarian socialism, but that is not what comes to most people's minds upon hearing the term "socialism" (and it is not the definition generally used in the academic and mainstream spheres today.)
Socialism is neither inherently statist or stateless, it's just an ideology that advocates that the resources in a community are shared by everyone for the benefit of the whole (at least that's the intention). This can manifest itself in a stateless society if everyone voluntarily supports the idea, or it can (and often does) manifest itself under a state where it is brutally imposed by force.
 
Aug 2010
92
NH
there's the rub huh?

there will always be people willing to game the system through corrupt practices be they everyday citizens or agents of government

human nature is a bitch
In a stateless society this wouldn't be a problem. The people who wouldn't want to participate...just wouldn't participate. The system would be voluntary socialism. It's not so peaceful with the state involved though, which holds people at gun point to conform to the ideology.
 
Aug 2010
862
In a stateless society this wouldn't be a problem. The people who wouldn't want to participate...just wouldn't participate.
Lol... they'd just steal and intimidate the participants into giving the non participants what they want.

The system would be voluntary socialism. It's not so peaceful with the state involved though, which holds people at gun point to conform to the ideology.
No, it'd be slavery with the nonparticipants holding a gun to the head of the participants.
 
Aug 2010
92
NH
Lol... they'd just steal and intimidate the participants into giving the non participants what they want.

No, it'd be slavery with the nonparticipants holding a gun to the head of the participants.
No, the lizards and rodents would hold guns at everyone and take their food and water and all the people would be starving and thirsty! (sarcasm)

Do you have any justification for your remarks?
 
Aug 2010
862
justification....

Somalia for starters.... how about Waziristan.. etc etc

With no law society breaks down and the strong prey on the weak... see Lord of the Flies for a literary example. Or a Canticle for Leibowitz...

My assertion is speculation but speculation with a reasonable chance of being true.
 
Aug 2010
92
NH
justification....

Somalia for starters.... how about Waziristan.. etc etc

With no law society breaks down and the strong prey on the weak... see Lord of the Flies for a literary example. Or a Canticle for Leibowitz...

My assertion is speculation but speculation with a reasonable chance of being true.
First of all, no anarchist would consider Somalia a case of anarchy. It did not go through the controlled demolition, rather the tyrannical government was gone overnight. However, despite all of that, Somalia has actually improved its living conditions in nearly every facet.

http://www.peterleeson.com/Better_Off_Stateless.pdf

Secondly, stories are not historical examples. An author can write anything he wants to happen in a story.

And lastly, this really isn't the discussion I was aiming for. I was only clarifying that socialism isn't necessarily statist.
 

myp

Jan 2009
5,841
Somalia is not the best argument for anyone debating against anarchism because if you look at the comparison between Somalia's last formal government and the current situation, many things have actually gotten better- namely the economy. Furthermore, it is important to remember that even in a stateless society, morals and values still exist. Law-abiding citizens today aren't just going to turn into murderers tomorrow if the state is dissolved.
 
Aug 2010
862
it sure looks like anarchy to me...

literature reflect human behavior and as such, though and abstraction, they illustrate a point

nicked from Ignoramus: Take ten hogs and twenty pigs. Put them in a pigsty with food sufficient for all but no more. In short order, the hogs will be fat and the pigs will be gaunt. Are the hogs conspiring against the pigs? No, they’re just being hogs.

pretty on point illustration of what I was getting at. In the absence of authority the strong will prey on the weak - that was my point.


I'll accept that socialism isn't necessarily statist but those are the best (only?) examples we have


Furthermore, it is important to remember that even in a stateless society, morals and values still exist. Law-abiding citizens today aren't just going to turn into murderers tomorrow if the state is dissolved.
However, even in our society today we have those who prey on the weak. Absent the state or other authority stepping in to prevent them from doing so it will become much easier.
 
Aug 2010
92
NH
it sure looks like anarchy to me...
Then how do you define anarchy?

literature reflect human behavior and as such, though and abstraction, they illustrate a point

nicked from Ignoramus: Take ten hogs and twenty pigs. Put them in a pigsty with food sufficient for all but no more. In short order, the hogs will be fat and the pigs will be gaunt. Are the hogs conspiring against the pigs? No, they?re just being hogs.

pretty on point illustration of what I was getting at. In the absence of authority the strong will prey on the weak - that was my point.
The state is the strong preying on the weak.

I'll accept that socialism isn't necessarily statist but those are the best (only?) examples we have.
Not really. 5 friends can start a business and agree to split the profit 5 equal ways, regardless of who does the most/least work. That's a socialist structure, and far more peaceful than any statist socialist community. The reason you don't see stateless socialist communities that are very large is because people generally don't voluntarily agree to share everything within the whole community; people have some inevitable self interest.
 
Jul 2009
5,880
Port St. Lucie
Not really. 5 friends can start a business and agree to split the profit 5 equal ways, regardless of who does the most/least work. That's a socialist structure, and far more peaceful than any statist socialist community. The reason you don't see stateless socialist communities that are very large is because people generally don't voluntarily agree to share everything within the whole community; people have some inevitable self interest.
Or said communities get wiped out by some rival faction, the Nationalists and (hugely successful) anarchist communes in the Spanish Civil War for example.
 
Aug 2010
862
Then how do you define anarchy?
in the negative - which is to say - the lack of order

I'd equate it with chaos

I suspect you're using a more specific definition though - ok

The state is the strong preying on the weak.
I fundamentally disagree. But assuming you're right for the sake of argument... the state has rules that it must generally abide by (or at least suffer when it breaks them). In the lawless society there is nothing but might making right. Even in our society one's rights are only as valuable as one's ability to defend or enforce them.

Just curious.... how is the new healthcare plan preyingon the weak? how about the 99 weeks of unemployment benefits? on and on with the list of entitlements... how do they fit in?

Not really. 5 friends can start a business and agree to split the profit 5 equal ways, regardless of who does the most/least work. That's a socialist structure, and far more peaceful than any statist socialist community.
That's a contractual agreement that you regard as socialist.

blah blah blah

we disagree - ok
 
Aug 2010
103
it sure looks like anarchy to me...
literature reflect human behavior and as such, though and abstraction, they illustrate a point
 
nicked from Ignoramus: Take ten hogs and twenty pigs. Put them in a pigsty with food sufficient for all but no more. In short order, the hogs will be fat and the pigs will be gaunt. Are the hogs conspiring against the pigs? No, they?re just being hogs.
pretty on point illustration of what I was getting at. In the absence of authority the strong will prey on the weak - that was my point.
Yeah, but it wasn?t my point. I was describing how our system works. In the absence of authority, the hogs don?t fare so well. If you look at the Bushmen, the Hadza, and the pre-Danish polar Inuit, there is an absence of hierarchy. For some strange reason, maybe it has something to do with getting grants, anthropologists don?t like to use the A word. However, it would seem that the political system that has prevailed through most of human existence meets the dictionary definition of Anarchism. The primary function of civilization is to take the harvest from the Harvester and give it to the Elites. It?s been that way in every civilized state since the advent of agriculture which was probably Mankind?s biggest screw up. Agriculture created a surplus to support a military. The military was used to enslave people and this created civilization. Now, every civilized social political system is just another variation on a theme, take from the Harvester and give it to the Elites. There are a lot of rationales for this, but behind every one, is the sword. Obey or die.
Civilization creates the strong which preys on the weak.
 
Aug 2010
862
Yeah, but it wasn?t my point. I was describing how our system works. In the absence of authority, the hogs don?t fare so well.
oddly enough people behave that we in any system because it is human nature

If you look at the Bushmen, the Hadza, and the pre-Danish polar Inuit, there is an absence of hierarchy. For some strange reason, maybe it has something to do with getting grants, anthropologists don?t like to use the A word. However, it would seem that the political system that has prevailed through most of human existence meets the dictionary definition of Anarchism.
How are you defining anarchy?

I'd have no reason to disagree that for most of human history we probably had no recognized political heirarchy in an abstract or politically concrete sense. But we do now on most of the planet.

The primary function of civilization is to take the harvest from the Harvester and give it to the Elites. It?s been that way in every civilized state since the advent of agriculture which was probably Mankind?s biggest screw up. Agriculture created a surplus to support a military. The military was used to enslave people and this created civilization. Now, every civilized social political system is just another variation on a theme, take from the Harvester and give it to the Elites. There are a lot of rationales for this, but behind every one, is the sword. Obey or die.
There was a radical shift when the agricultural revolution occurred that's for sure. It tended, which you know, be very female fertility deity focused. This was then replaced by male war gods and that teired heirarchy you refer to became entrenched... eventualy slave and serf type systems because very common.

Civilization creates the strong which preys on the weak.
It is a common result yes. It is not much different that not having civilization where the strong prey on the weak.

The difference is that today we have rules in place seeking to limit the power of the state to prey on the people (this is often referred to as a negative rights concept). Is it perfect? Hell no, never will be. But its better than the alternative where there are no restraints on the actions of the strong (whom we both agree will prey on the weak)
 
Aug 2010
103
oddly enough people behave that we in any system because it is human nature
The Bushmen and the Hadza don?t. The pre-Danish polar Inuit didn?t.
How are you defining anarchy?
From the Merriam-Webster?s Unabridged Dictionary, CD Version 3.0
Anarchism:
Main Entry:an?ar?chism
Pronunciation:*an*(r)*kiz*m also -*n*r*- or -*n**-
Function:noun
Inflected Form:-s
Etymology:anarchy + -ism
1 : a political theory opposed to all forms of government and governmental restraint and advocating voluntary cooperation and free association of individuals and groups in order to satisfy their needs ? compare NIHILISM
2 : the advocacy or practice of anarchistic principles *stood for the divine character of established authority against the anarchism of free and critical thought? A.L.Gu*rard*
I'd have no reason to disagree that for most of human history we probably had no recognized political heirarchy in an abstract or politically concrete sense. But we do now on most of the planet.
There was a radical shift when the agricultural revolution occurred that's for sure. It tended, which you know, be very female fertility deity focused. This was then replaced by male war gods and that teired heirarchy you refer to became entrenched... eventualy slave and serf type systems because very common.
It is a common result yes. It is not much different that not having civilization where the strong prey on the weak.
In comic books, before civilization, the strong preyed on the weak. Again, with the Bushmen, Hadza, and the pre-Danish polar Inuit, it didn?t happen. Oh, there may have been incidents, but compared to the organized predation in civilized states, there is no comparison. In civilized states, it?s part of the system. There is no anthropological evidence to suggest that that predation was the rule before civilization, the evidence indicates the contrary.
The difference is that today we have rules in place seeking to limit the power of the state to prey on the people (this is often referred to as a negative rights concept). Is it perfect? Hell no, never will be. But its better than the alternative where there are no restraints on the actions of the strong (whom we both agree will prey on the weak)
But we both don?t agree on that point. I strongly disagree. In pre-civilized social orders, the chieftains were often the poorest of their group. These were persuasive social orders. Civilization is not persuasive, it is authoritative to the extreme. The rules in place today are primarily there to facilitate exploitation. In the United States, it is called the system by the knowledgeable. The system doesn?t work for the weak, but it works very well for the strong. Government is essentially the art of convincing the many that the interests of the few are the interests of the many.
Propaganda tells us that the few on the top give to the many on the bottom. It should be obvious to any but a brainwashed vidiot that the many on the bottom give to the few on the top. Without the Harvester, there is nothing to give.