4 ms·

"I don't like the idea of anyone forcing me to accept socialism" Haha, so you are not socialist at all!! Socialist is forcing others to accept socialist, in f

"I don't like the idea of anyone forcing me to accept socialism" Haha, so you are not socialist at all!! Socialist is forcing others to accept socialist, in fact is forcing (other)individuals to give money to their "social causes", that could be different from those individuals have. Is not asking politely: would you mind giving part of your money to this poor people so they can study? No, it is taking by force his money if he doesn't want to, and consider it "a right". As my grandpa who lived in soviet rusia said when I asked what is socialism, he said: It is being generous with other people's money. If you accept individual freedoms to choose, you are not socialist, not more that anybody else here.

steveklabnik 16y ago
You're operating under a very narrow, incorrect definition of socialism.
- forgottenpaswrd 16y ago
  Narrow? No, is broad. It applies to every socialism in existence, planning and managing others resources, not your own. A private socialism is not a socialism at all, because you need a society to comply. Maybe you could give me a better definition.
  - steveklabnik 16y ago
    > Socialism is an economic and political theory advocating public or common ownership and cooperative management of the means of production and allocation of resources. Nowhere does this say "take my money and give it to other people." For example, anarchism is a socialist political philosophy, but abhors the state, and all forms of hierarchical control.
    - lzw 16y ago
      Anarchism is inherently capitalist, because without the state, there would be nobody to stop capitalists from deploying capital to do startups. There would be nobody ot impose your socialist values to make everyone act the way you dictate.
      - steveklabnik 16y ago
        I'd suggest that you do a little more reading on this topic, because you're grossly misinformed. Wikipedia is a decent intro, and "An Anarchist FAQ" is a very long and thorough discussion of the topic: http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/index.html http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/index.html
        lzw 16y ago
        Your dishonesty does not constitute misinformation on my part. If you cannot be honest, or are so ignorant and unwilling to be corrected,o then there is no point in discussion. I don't dispute that there are socialist liars whovcall themselves anarchists, just as there are liars who call themselves libertarian, like yourself. Linking to such liars proves nothing, but that you would be so presumptuous as to lecture me and back it up with a link shows that you are incapable of critical thought or debate, and thus a waste of time.
        steveklabnik 16y ago
        Thank you for the discussion. I'm not going to respond to you any more.
    - philwelch 16y ago
      For anarchism to actually eliminate violence, it has to have some mechanism to protect society from Genghis Khan and Jack the Ripper. Statistically, Genghis Khan will eventually be born somewhere outside your society and eventually show up at your doorstep with hordes of horseback archers, and you can either surrender, join his empire, and pay taxes (ending your experiment in anarchism) or have your entire society destroyed almost to the last man, leaving a few survivors to warn other societies of the tale (ending your experiment in anarchism). If you had the only anarchist society in a world of states, you could probably freeload on those states to stop any full-scale Genghis Khan from getting too powerful. Let's hope your experiment in anarchism is landlocked between several states who will leave you alone. You could allow for voluntary defense, and theoretically handwave away defensive violence against people outside your society as "doesn't count". But on some level you have to realize your society depends upon some violence to survive. Jack the Ripper will show up inside your society and fuck up your voluntary social contract all on his own, when he goes around killing disreputable women (luckily, many forms of anarcho-socialism lack money and thus would have no prostitution per se). In that case you would need some sort of violence (possibly voluntary on the part of the violent people) to either kill Jack the Ripper, or lock him up in a cage, or kick him out of your society. If you do that, you have violence within your society--if you don't, you have violence within your society in the form of Jack the Ripper. It turns out all of human history has been an extended experiment in solving these very problems, and the only steady state, as discovered in parallel by nearly every culture on earth, is in fact the State[1]. At best you can have voluntarism within the State, but you cannot sustain anarchism without the State. [1] Existing primitivists, such as the bushmen of Africa, have largely been forced out of their traditional lifestyle by the State. If there are primitivists who do, in fact, maintain their traditional lifestyle, they only do so under the explicit protection of the State, as discussed in the freeloading example above. In other words, it's still an anarchism that requires the State to function, which is a contradiction in terms. Hunter-gatherers are not necessarily anarchists. Many of the greatest empires in world history were built by hunter-gatherers, who on account of their hunting and gathering made much better soldiers than people living in civilizations. They ate a more balanced diet, got more exercise, knew how to kill things, and knew how to kill things as a team. Horseback archery isn't a skill you get to hone much as a farmer. If you have that basic skillset, civilizations make pretty good targets once you run low on animals.

steveklabnik 16y ago

You're operating under a very narrow, incorrect definition of socialism.

forgottenpaswrd 16y ago
Narrow? No, is broad. It applies to every socialism in existence, planning and managing others resources, not your own. A private socialism is not a socialism at all, because you need a society to comply. Maybe you could give me a better definition.
- steveklabnik 16y ago
  > Socialism is an economic and political theory advocating public or common ownership and cooperative management of the means of production and allocation of resources. Nowhere does this say "take my money and give it to other people." For example, anarchism is a socialist political philosophy, but abhors the state, and all forms of hierarchical control.
  - lzw 16y ago
    Anarchism is inherently capitalist, because without the state, there would be nobody to stop capitalists from deploying capital to do startups. There would be nobody ot impose your socialist values to make everyone act the way you dictate.
    - steveklabnik 16y ago
      I'd suggest that you do a little more reading on this topic, because you're grossly misinformed. Wikipedia is a decent intro, and "An Anarchist FAQ" is a very long and thorough discussion of the topic: http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/index.html http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/index.html
      - lzw 16y ago
        Your dishonesty does not constitute misinformation on my part. If you cannot be honest, or are so ignorant and unwilling to be corrected,o then there is no point in discussion. I don't dispute that there are socialist liars whovcall themselves anarchists, just as there are liars who call themselves libertarian, like yourself. Linking to such liars proves nothing, but that you would be so presumptuous as to lecture me and back it up with a link shows that you are incapable of critical thought or debate, and thus a waste of time.
        steveklabnik 16y ago
        Thank you for the discussion. I'm not going to respond to you any more.
  - philwelch 16y ago
    For anarchism to actually eliminate violence, it has to have some mechanism to protect society from Genghis Khan and Jack the Ripper. Statistically, Genghis Khan will eventually be born somewhere outside your society and eventually show up at your doorstep with hordes of horseback archers, and you can either surrender, join his empire, and pay taxes (ending your experiment in anarchism) or have your entire society destroyed almost to the last man, leaving a few survivors to warn other societies of the tale (ending your experiment in anarchism). If you had the only anarchist society in a world of states, you could probably freeload on those states to stop any full-scale Genghis Khan from getting too powerful. Let's hope your experiment in anarchism is landlocked between several states who will leave you alone. You could allow for voluntary defense, and theoretically handwave away defensive violence against people outside your society as "doesn't count". But on some level you have to realize your society depends upon some violence to survive. Jack the Ripper will show up inside your society and fuck up your voluntary social contract all on his own, when he goes around killing disreputable women (luckily, many forms of anarcho-socialism lack money and thus would have no prostitution per se). In that case you would need some sort of violence (possibly voluntary on the part of the violent people) to either kill Jack the Ripper, or lock him up in a cage, or kick him out of your society. If you do that, you have violence within your society--if you don't, you have violence within your society in the form of Jack the Ripper. It turns out all of human history has been an extended experiment in solving these very problems, and the only steady state, as discovered in parallel by nearly every culture on earth, is in fact the State[1]. At best you can have voluntarism within the State, but you cannot sustain anarchism without the State. [1] Existing primitivists, such as the bushmen of Africa, have largely been forced out of their traditional lifestyle by the State. If there are primitivists who do, in fact, maintain their traditional lifestyle, they only do so under the explicit protection of the State, as discussed in the freeloading example above. In other words, it's still an anarchism that requires the State to function, which is a contradiction in terms. Hunter-gatherers are not necessarily anarchists. Many of the greatest empires in world history were built by hunter-gatherers, who on account of their hunting and gathering made much better soldiers than people living in civilizations. They ate a more balanced diet, got more exercise, knew how to kill things, and knew how to kill things as a team. Horseback archery isn't a skill you get to hone much as a farmer. If you have that basic skillset, civilizations make pretty good targets once you run low on animals.