3 ms·
One thing I’ve been studying a lot on my free time is the deep history of the concept of socialism. Not a particular implementation but the idea that it would b
by TaylorAlexander 8y ago
One thing I’ve been studying a lot on my free time is the deep history of the concept of socialism. Not a particular implementation but the idea that it would be a good idea for us to intentionally build a world where everyone has certain basic needs met by society at large. In particular there is a rich history of “libertarian socialism” which advocates for direct social support of one another without a state. Typically it is advocated that this be done via organizational structures that do not require any individual to reach in to their pocket when another is in need, but by arranging society such that things like medical care are simply abundant, and only ever putting effort in to unnecessary developments (luxuries) once the basic needs of all people have been met. Obviously doing this is nontrivial and could only be achieved through a long process of repeated democratic decision making.
The idea that we could care for one another without a state is both obvious and perplexing. People have always cared for themselves somewhere in the world even if some societies have been highly centralized.
All this said, I have been fostering a deep appreciation for socialism as a utopian ideal to be discussed rather than either a bogey man or as something that requires the expansion of state power to realize. Many well meaning leftists have empowered authoritarians in their effort to force their desired outcomes. At the same time, the state as it stands today could be used to materially improve the lives of many impoverished people.
I think the answer is to use the state as needed in the short term to help those in need, while recognizing the “technical debt” it creates by ultimately undermining freedom. Any work done with the state should be done cautiously and with the understanding that the state power will need in the long term to be eclipsed by power organized by the people. And we cannot simply advocate for state power - long term we must build these structures inside our society, not rely on state power to enforce our idea of a just society.
But we must fight for socialism. I’ve enjoyed these two videos by Murray Bookchin recently.
This critique of the left from 1986 is hugely applicable to today (he even mentions Bernie Sanders briefly):
https://youtu.be/kBP_BMOblzc https://youtu.be/kBP_BMOblzc
This video gets at the way our fantasies about technology can ignore our own desires as human beings, and presents an interesting contrast between then notion of futurism and utopianism:
https://youtu.be/wS3-PffLKqM https://youtu.be/wS3-PffLKqM
- hippich 8y agoMy current world view is that socialism implemented via central authority ruling over a very large group (i.e. socialistic government of USSR) is not working, because personal relationships connections are broken when helping each other is outsourced to some abstract entity. It is that entity being praised and hated when someone gets help or someone doesn't. The fact that it is neighbors, other region people, etc actually are involved in that is lost. No longer you can shame your neighbor for not helping a neighbor, or when they help - they get no word of appreciation. It is all abstracted away behind "They" - "why They did not fix roads?", "They healed my child from cancer", "They produced enormous GDP". This is the opposite of "my neighbor took my wife to the hospital when her waters broke and my car broke too", "our neighborhood resurfaced our road". In fact... The same thoughts probably apply to most modern and developed countries, as most of them has a significant amount of socialistic elements already...
- jmcqk6 8y agoThis is a very interesting idea. I've been thinking that one of the big problems with government today is that most people do think of it as a 'they' instead of an 'us', but I think the reason is more complex than personal relationships being broken. At the core, whatever the reason for it, government is not, in fact, a 'they'; it is an 'us.' Many of us insist otherwise, and give many, many different reasons for it, but at it's core government is the mechanism we have for figuring out how to live together. I don't have proof of this, but I suspect that any other mechanism we come up with is going to inevitably converge towards becoming a government.
- hippich 8y agoI totally agree and trying to point it out all the time when I hear "they". But the reality is - when some person sits looooong away in Washington and makes some rules - they are hardly connected to the people they represent. Smaller and more compact governing bodies I think would resolve the problem, where we would still get a benefit of a dedicated person working on organizing life in the region, and yet not too disconnected to be called "they".