ahem . . . every time socialism has been tried as a single economic/political system it has failed . . . thus endeth the tale.
Socialism works small scale as a component of a capitalistic economic system and nowhere else . . .
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
^A home owners association or something that closely resembles it.[/quote]
Home owners association is more like an oligarchy. My father lives in an HOA, and I hate it, ever few months I have to go to his place to clean up his house for him, the thing is…there is nothing wrong. They require desert landscaping and they complain when there is a weed in his yard, because it is not ‘desert landscaping’, but he lives in the desert with desert plants in his yard. Baffles me. [/quote]
It’s voluntary.
I don’t think it is.
[quote]The Mage wrote:
I don’t think it is.[/quote]
Great line of argument here . . . .
A homeowner’s association works in one of two ways - open community or closed community
If you chose to live in that community and membership is open, you had two choices - buying that house in that community and second joining the HA.
If you choose to live in that community and it is a closed community (membership required) - you still had two choices - buying into that community and second, leading a reform movement within the HA to fix the issues you have with it.
You seem to be confusing Marx with the Physiocrats. Marxism maintains that all value is created by labor. Wealth is simply material use-values. Thus, it’s completely possible for a society for accumulate wealth, but for that wealth to simultaneously lose value (if less labor is expended on its production). At any rate, your conclusion is not grounded in any reading of Marx. Anyone making a moral conclusion that supposedly follows from Marxism is more than likely wrong. Marx made essentially no moral arguments.
[quote]So my point here are that Marxists are under no obligation to explain anything about freedom – to them it is part of the class system that exploits it members. But really there is also no clear idea in this discussion about what freedom is (my aside with money was to help put it in perspective), so we will ever be running around in circles here for want of a definition.
And as always, I might just be full of shit…
– jj[/quote]
Marx advocated true freedom for society, not the liberal illusion. The actions of subsequent regimes that claimed his mantle should in no way be imputed to Marx. Just as everyone here would cry foul if I were to attempt to link the actions of murderous capitalist regimes to the ideas of the classical liberals.
[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
ahem . . . every time socialism has been tried as a single economic/political system it has failed . . . thus endeth the tale.
Socialism works small scale as a component of a capitalistic economic system and nowhere else . . .[/quote]
With all due respect, Irish, you don’t have the foggiest idea what you’re talking about. Seriously, everything you’ve said in this thread has been a gross misunderstanding of socialism.
Apparently none of us can even agree on terms so I guess it is all just a misunderstanding…
Hahahahahahahaha!
[quote]The Mage wrote:This idea of collectivism all sounds so nice, with everybody working together for the common good. Problem is for some reason certain people think other need to be forced into such a system.
I have had a crazy idea running through my head for a few years, but have been reluctant to present it. It is what I would call capitalistic socialism. If there are people out there who truly want to live a communal existence, I don’t see anything stopping them. They are fooled into the idea that they need to make the government do it, when they can very easily get a group of like minded people together to do it on their own.[/quote]
You realize that this has been tried many times, only to have the experiments crushed by hostile capitalists, right? Come on, do you seriously believe that a system in which personal gain is the overriding mechanism of action would not try to destroy such a threat?
The piousness of capitalists, who assert that socialism, founded on cooperation, will lead inexorably to totalitarianism, while capitalism, a system which encourages ruthless competition for personal gain, will lead to flowers and rainbows, never ceases to amaze and demoralize me. Even more when they maintain this despite the fact that it has never worked.
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
The piousness of capitalists, who assert that socialism, founded on cooperation, will lead inexorably to totalitarianism, while capitalism, a system which encourages ruthless competition for personal gain, will lead to flowers and rainbows, never ceases to amaze and demoralize me. Even more when they maintain this despite the fact that it has never worked.
[/quote]
I think advocates of the free-market openly assert the lack of flowers and rainbows. They argue that markets help turn vices (greed, and its friends) into more positive (not ideally “Good”) forces.
Where as socialism requires either suppressing these aspects of our humanity by 100% consensus, forcibly re-programing the population (can it be done?), or just simply exists as a theory in a fantasy world not applicable to human-beings.
I’m talking pure socialism here, not “socialistic ideas” (like universal health-care), which can work with some groups, in some economies, in some cultures.
It’s socialism that tries to offer a world of equality, bunnies and rainbows. Capitalistic ideals are both more primitive (i.e. more in line with nature), and more often experienced: I work I have more stuff. My dad worked hard and had more stuff, then gave it to me, now I work hard and make have even more stuff. That’s how civilization was built.
The argument for socialism strikes me as similar to the moral argument for vegan-ism:
“We have outgrown both nature and our primitive self, and now must hold ourselves above nature, and to a higher set of rules. What was once necessary for survival, is no longer, and is barbaric (either the killing and eating of meat, or the competition for resources between us). And from our white tower we shall look upon the unenlightened with pity, hoping that some day they will, like us, reach beyond their natures of what is necessary to survive, and do what is morally right: be vegan/socialist (or even communist).”
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
ahem . . . every time socialism has been tried as a single economic/political system it has failed . . . thus endeth the tale.
Socialism works small scale as a component of a capitalistic economic system and nowhere else . . .[/quote]
With all due respect, Irish, you don’t have the foggiest idea what you’re talking about. Seriously, everything you’ve said in this thread has been a gross misunderstanding of socialism.[/quote]
Well, then, Mr. Enlightened-Socialist pray tell where this shining example, nay, paragon of socialism as a single political and economic system has existed and succeeded? Where is this grand utopia of which you so knowledgeably speak? We are all longing, even aching to witness such perfection in acion!! Oh, my poor deluded intellect to have even questioned the grand wisdom of your . . .can i stop this now?
Give me your example and not your rhetoric!!
[quote]Spartiates wrote:
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
The piousness of capitalists, who assert that socialism, founded on cooperation, will lead inexorably to totalitarianism, while capitalism, a system which encourages ruthless competition for personal gain, will lead to flowers and rainbows, never ceases to amaze and demoralize me. Even more when they maintain this despite the fact that it has never worked.
[/quote]
I think advocates of the free-market openly assert the lack of flowers and rainbows. They argue that markets help turn vices (greed, and its friends) into more positive (not ideally “Good”) forces.
Where as socialism requires either suppressing these aspects of our humanity by 100% consensus, forcibly re-programing the population (can it be done?), or just simply exists as a theory in a fantasy world not applicable to human-beings.
I’m talking pure socialism here, not “socialistic ideas” (like universal health-care), which can work with some groups, in some economies, in some cultures.
It’s socialism that tries to offer a world of equality, bunnies and rainbows. Capitalistic ideals are both more primitive (i.e. more in line with nature), and more often experienced: I work I have more stuff. My dad worked hard and had more stuff, then gave it to me, now I work hard and make have even more stuff. That’s how civilization was built.
The argument for socialism strikes me as similar to the moral argument for vegan-ism:
“We have outgrown both nature and our primitive self, and now must hold ourselves above nature, and to a higher set of rules. What was once necessary for survival, is no longer, and is barbaric (either the killing and eating of meat, or the competition for resources between us). And from our white tower we shall look upon the unenlightened with pity, hoping that some day they will, like us, reach beyond their natures of what is necessary to survive, and do what is morally right: be vegan/socialist (or even communist).”[/quote]
what is really the nature of human? from my perspective it is the ablitity to manipulate the nature or in another terms to create. This is whats give us our freedom and strenght ( not strenght as 1rm hehe ), the lion is exclusively a hunter, where as humans can be hunters, farmers or both. We are not limited by our nature to make choices. if we where, we would not have freedom and any discussion about freedom would be meeningless. And after what I remember, this discussion is about freedom in socialisme. So if it is like you say that our nature prohibit us to create a socialist and egilitarian society, then we are not free, because we are bound by our nature and there could not exist any societys where it members where free. I on the other hand do believe we are free, and that is what makes us able to choose a socialist and egilitarian society.
[quote]florelius wrote:
what is really the nature of human? from my perspective it is the ablitity to manipulate the nature or in another terms to create. This is whats give us our freedom and strenght ( not strenght as 1rm hehe ), the lion is exclusively a hunter, where as humans can be hunters, farmers or both. We are not limited by our nature to make choices. if we where, we would not have freedom and any discussion about freedom would be meeningless. And after what I remember, this discussion is about freedom in socialisme. So if it is like you say that our nature prohibit us to create a socialist and egilitarian society, then we are not free, because we are bound by our nature and there could not exist any societys where it members where free. I on the other hand do believe we are free, and that is what makes us able to choose a socialist and egilitarian society.[/quote]
I don’t think the world is deterministic. Intellectually I believe we have a degree of freedom, and intuitively, I feel like I/we have total freedom. Just like you could choose to be vegan, we could choose be socialist, and then enforce it on those who don’t want it (since socialism is so easily spoiled by a few bad eggs). But that doesn’t make it the smart decision. I could also cut off my arm. I’m free to do it, but I can see the world around me, and I can read history, and then come to the conclusion that cutting off my arm probably isn’t a good idea. There are still good ideas and bad ideas. We are free to act against our nature, to try and suppress it, but I think we find we’re much more successful when we try and use what comes naturally to us as an advantage, instead of treating as a vice.
The other point I’d make is that you’re doing something that people with socialist tenancies often do, where you conflate different meanings of freedom. Earlier in the thread, I labeled one freedom from and the other freedom to. I think that’s being generous. Freedom from isn’t really freedom, but a restriction on the freedom of others. And that leaves us with no pure-definition of freedom. I believe words have meaning, so I don’t like that.
Your example about freedom:
“We are not limited by our nature to make choices. if we where, we would not have freedom and any discussion about freedom would be meeningless.”
I think really nails the point home. This is backwards. In a state of nature, we had absolute freedom. Any individual could do whatever they wanted, and would have to deal with whatever consequences nature or other people threw at them. But that is absolute freedom.
When we enter enter a society, we give up freedoms in exchange for stability (and then civilization). Stability is not freedom, it’s stability, no matter what you call it. Universal healthcare doesn’t make me freer, it makes my life more stable, and it involves me sacrificing more freedom for that stability.
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
[quote]The Mage wrote:This idea of collectivism all sounds so nice, with everybody working together for the common good. Problem is for some reason certain people think other need to be forced into such a system.
I have had a crazy idea running through my head for a few years, but have been reluctant to present it. It is what I would call capitalistic socialism. If there are people out there who truly want to live a communal existence, I don’t see anything stopping them. They are fooled into the idea that they need to make the government do it, when they can very easily get a group of like minded people together to do it on their own.[/quote]
You realize that this has been tried many times, only to have the experiments crushed by hostile capitalists, right? Come on, do you seriously believe that a system in which personal gain is the overriding mechanism of action would not try to destroy such a threat?
The piousness of capitalists, who assert that socialism, founded on cooperation, will lead inexorably to totalitarianism, while capitalism, a system which encourages ruthless competition for personal gain, will lead to flowers and rainbows, never ceases to amaze and demoralize me. Even more when they maintain this despite the fact that it has never worked.
[/quote]
Are you sure? I can see it failing on it’s own, but it is nothing but a club. We have plenty of clubs here. As long as they keep their rules on themselves, and try not to impose them on other people, (which is the big problem,) nobody is going to care about them.
Also I don’t know what you think a capitalist really is. I keep hearing these distorted views of them, and too often what I am hearing is not true capitalism.
Capitalists do try to crush the competition, but through being a better business. Going underhanded is not capitalism. In fact an intelligent capitalist believes that competition is good. The perfect example is when McDonald’s has a restaurant on a street corner, and Burger King decides to put one across the street.
An interesting thing happens. The sales at both establishments actually have more business because of the one across the street. It sounds illogical, but it is a known fact of business.
Right now I belong to an online group that is related to my business. These people are giving each other advice on how to run their businesses successfully. In fact my business has benefited from belonging to this group, and I have donated funds to help keep that forum running.
Some of these people are in direct competition with each other. When I showed up, started asking questions, they answered them, and helped me get my business up and running.
I know a couple of the active members actually started out as employees working in the business, and after learning how simple everything was, went off and started doing it on their own.
This is true capitalism, not whatever you think it is.
To truly be able to “crush” a group requires a level of power that cannot exist in a true, small government, conservative country. In fact the rules are supposed to be set up to prevent something like that.
[quote]florelius wrote:
what is really the nature of human? from my perspective it is the ablitity to manipulate the nature or in another terms to create. This is whats give us our freedom and strenght ( not strenght as 1rm hehe ), the lion is exclusively a hunter, where as humans can be hunters, farmers or both. We are not limited by our nature to make choices. if we where, we would not have freedom and any discussion about freedom would be meeningless. And after what I remember, this discussion is about freedom in socialisme. So if it is like you say that our nature prohibit us to create a socialist and egilitarian society, then we are not free, because we are bound by our nature and there could not exist any societys where it members where free. I on the other hand do believe we are free, and that is what makes us able to choose a socialist and egilitarian society.[/quote]
I have said this numerous times on this forum, but I will say it again.
There is a reason capitalism keeps working, and socialism keeps failing in the world. And why when capitalism has problems, they can almost always, if not always, be traced back to some socialism being introduced.
That is the very aspect of nature. Survival of the fittest.
Proper capitalism follows the aspects created by nature. Business succeeds or fails based on it being run properly, and to the benefit of it’s customers, and employees. You have unhappy customers, you won’t have customers. And you want happy employees too. Otherwise you will be less likely to have happy customers.
We have wealthy businessmen bending over backwards for a poor customer. Why? Because the customer is king. And that means the rich man is technically the employee of the poor man.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
^A home owners association or something that closely resembles it.[/quote]
Home owners association is more like an oligarchy. My father lives in an HOA, and I hate it, ever few months I have to go to his place to clean up his house for him, the thing is…there is nothing wrong. They require desert landscaping and they complain when there is a weed in his yard, because it is not ‘desert landscaping’, but he lives in the desert with desert plants in his yard. Baffles me. [/quote]
It’s voluntary.[/quote]
How is HOA voluntary?
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
The piousness of capitalists, who assert that socialism, founded on cooperation, will lead inexorably to totalitarianism, while capitalism, a system which encourages ruthless competition for personal gain, will lead to flowers and rainbows, never ceases to amaze and demoralize me. Even more when they maintain this despite the fact that it has never worked.
[/quote]
Capitalism is not a man made system, no man has to implement it. It just is…however if your socialism by cooperation is what your asking for it can only happen in a non-state environment, which would allow for pure capitalism.
There are some pro-capitalism arguments that just don’t strike me as being honest. Like it not being implemented by man. How is individual ownership of land (on which the capitalist produces) not implemented by man? Because he worked it? Ok, he took the initiative, but noone asked him too. He didn’t create the land, he just up and decided to work it. At some point it has to be force that makes natural resources we did not create into our personal property. One could say they owned the labor put into working the resources, thus making the resources into their personal property. So? How does that make it personal property? What if others claim that their action was to decide not to use that land/resources at the time. Isn’t a decision to refrain, or to share, also Human Action?
Edit: Hey, I’m just saying. Both are man-made, man implemented, man enforced.
[quote]Spartiates wrote:
[quote]florelius wrote:
what is really the nature of human? from my perspective it is the ablitity to manipulate the nature or in another terms to create. This is whats give us our freedom and strenght ( not strenght as 1rm hehe ), the lion is exclusively a hunter, where as humans can be hunters, farmers or both. We are not limited by our nature to make choices. if we where, we would not have freedom and any discussion about freedom would be meeningless. And after what I remember, this discussion is about freedom in socialisme. So if it is like you say that our nature prohibit us to create a socialist and egilitarian society, then we are not free, because we are bound by our nature and there could not exist any societys where it members where free. I on the other hand do believe we are free, and that is what makes us able to choose a socialist and egilitarian society.[/quote]
I don’t think the world is deterministic. Intellectually I believe we have a degree of freedom, and intuitively, I feel like I/we have total freedom. Just like you could choose to be vegan, we could choose be socialist, and then enforce it on those who don’t want it (since socialism is so easily spoiled by a few bad eggs). But that doesn’t make it the smart decision. I could also cut off my arm. I’m free to do it, but I can see the world around me, and I can read history, and then come to the conclusion that cutting off my arm probably isn’t a good idea. There are still good ideas and bad ideas. We are free to act against our nature, to try and suppress it, but I think we find we’re much more successful when we try and use what comes naturally to us as an advantage, instead of treating as a vice.
The other point I’d make is that you’re doing something that people with socialist tenancies often do, where you conflate different meanings of freedom. Earlier in the thread, I labeled one freedom from and the other freedom to. I think that’s being generous. Freedom from isn’t really freedom, but a restriction on the freedom of others. And that leaves us with no pure-definition of freedom. I believe words have meaning, so I don’t like that.
Your example about freedom:
“We are not limited by our nature to make choices. if we where, we would not have freedom and any discussion about freedom would be meeningless.”
I think really nails the point home. This is backwards. In a state of nature, we had absolute freedom. Any individual could do whatever they wanted, and would have to deal with whatever consequences nature or other people threw at them. But that is absolute freedom.
When we enter enter a society, we give up freedoms in exchange for stability (and then civilization). Stability is not freedom, it’s stability, no matter what you call it. Universal healthcare doesn’t make me freer, it makes my life more stable, and it involves me sacrificing more freedom for that stability.[/quote]
I agree on the difference between absolut freedom and freedom in a social context ( read: freedom in a society ). I made a point about early in the tread. nice to see someone else who are aware of this haha.
so in this tread we need to put down some general and normative standards for freedom in a social context. If we do this, the discussion will elevate above the biased arguments between socialists ( like me ) and the pro-capitalists, because we most adhere to a set of rules to judge from. Then finally can we answer the question: liberty in socialisme.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
The piousness of capitalists, who assert that socialism, founded on cooperation, will lead inexorably to totalitarianism, while capitalism, a system which encourages ruthless competition for personal gain, will lead to flowers and rainbows, never ceases to amaze and demoralize me. Even more when they maintain this despite the fact that it has never worked.
[/quote]
Capitalism is not a man made system, no man has to implement it. It just is…however if your socialism by cooperation is what your asking for it can only happen in a non-state environment, which would allow for pure capitalism.[/quote]
If its not man made, who made it? the birds or the dogs perhaps.
[quote]The Mage wrote:
[quote]florelius wrote:
what is really the nature of human? from my perspective it is the ablitity to manipulate the nature or in another terms to create. This is whats give us our freedom and strenght ( not strenght as 1rm hehe ), the lion is exclusively a hunter, where as humans can be hunters, farmers or both. We are not limited by our nature to make choices. if we where, we would not have freedom and any discussion about freedom would be meeningless. And after what I remember, this discussion is about freedom in socialisme. So if it is like you say that our nature prohibit us to create a socialist and egilitarian society, then we are not free, because we are bound by our nature and there could not exist any societys where it members where free. I on the other hand do believe we are free, and that is what makes us able to choose a socialist and egilitarian society.[/quote]
I have said this numerous times on this forum, but I will say it again.
There is a reason capitalism keeps working, and socialism keeps failing in the world. And why when capitalism has problems, they can almost always, if not always, be traced back to some socialism being introduced.
That is the very aspect of nature. Survival of the fittest.
Proper capitalism follows the aspects created by nature. Business succeeds or fails based on it being run properly, and to the benefit of it’s customers, and employees. You have unhappy customers, you won’t have customers. And you want happy employees too. Otherwise you will be less likely to have happy customers.
We have wealthy businessmen bending over backwards for a poor customer. Why? Because the customer is king. And that means the rich man is technically the employee of the poor man.[/quote]
survivel of the fittest…hm. is not that the same reasoning behind the race-ideology of the nazis?
but on a serious note, after what I understand the survivel of the fittest teory is really about the survivel of the sexiest. its about your genes surviving you.
I think that your “nature of man” argument and the “survivel of the fittest” argument does not exclude socialisme as an alternative to capitalisme. because another aspect of mans “nature” is that humans are a higly social being, and that humans have always existed in groups. another take home note is that the more advanced the society is the more collective the society becomes, you think one person or a small community would be able to send a man to the moon?