5 ms·

> I would love to be able to have political discussions about these issues I'll bite. > socialism is defined From each according to his ability, to each acco

by maratd 16y ago

> I would love to be able to have political discussions about these issues I'll bite. > socialism is defined From each according to his ability, to each according to his need. Socialism is the way. Communism is the unreachable goal. > If socialism is public control, this does not equal totalitarianism. Social democracy is a form of democratic public control of resources. You can discuss things ad nauseum and it will mean nothing. The human mind is too primitive to account for all the facets of reality. There is an almost infinite number of factors that play into the reality of the state. In the end, the only way to know if something works is to try it. Socialism was tried. Repeatedly. It always led to a totalitarian state. Democracy is tyranny by the majority. When protections of the individual are removed for the sake of "social justice" or socialism or for any other reason, the majority is free to abuse the minority for its gain. And they do. Very quickly. This escalates over and over, until a totalitarian state is born.

michaelchisari 16y ago
Socialism was tried. Repeatedly. It always led to a totalitarian state. Marxist-Leninism is what you're referring to, and yes, that has led to totalitarianism. However, socialism predated Marx, and there are non-Marxist (and anti-Marxist) socialist philosophies. "From each according..." is not a tenet shared by all socialists.
- niels_olson 16y ago
  damn, sorry, meant to upvote.
- ikujythujik 16y ago
  Do you have a police force? fire service, public schools, roads? Then you have socialism.
- forkandwait 16y ago
  Also, Marx was really good at critiquing capitalism, but he never actually had a plan for after the revolution. Except to think everybody would be happy and a collective, pretty much perfect, rationalism would be manifest because of the dynamics of history. Then we would all just see the answer, which is to share and be nice. (He was a hegelian, remember, even if he didn't like to admit it.) Also ... its not like there was some blueprint that the Soviet Union applied as if they were building a machine tool on a large scale. The Soviet State has, in its large scale state organized brutality and corruption, is completely in line with Russian history (no offense to my Russian friends.... Russia is also soulful and brilliant).
- maratd 16y ago
  > "From each according..." is not a tenet shared by all socialists. Yes, of course. Something that is shared by all socialists is redistribution. If you're not redistributing something, then you're doing nothing. To redistribute something, you must infringe upon the liberties of the individual for the sake of another or a group of others. The more you do this, the faster you accelerate the march toward totalitarianism. For example, a minimal state that only provides a police force to enforce the laws and taxes individuals accordingly may take hundreds or even a thousand years to collapse into a totalitarian state. On the other hand, when you throw individual protections out the window, it may only take a few years. For example, contrary to popular belief, the period between the Russian revolution and Stalin's takeover was really interesting. It would take too long to go into it, but they tried some really exciting stuff and some of it worked. Unfortunately, when you discard individual liberty, it creates an opportunity for totalitarianism to step through the door.
brudgers 16y ago
>"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" Has it's origins in the Christian Bible - Acts 4:34-35.
- maxharris 16y ago
  This highlights one of the two major problems I have with religion: altruism. (The other thing I don't accept is faith as a valid method of obtaining knowledge.) In Atlas Shrugged, John Galt says, "I swear by my life and my love of it, that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine." Edit: Why the downvotes? The parent post quoted the Bible, so why is it invalid for me to quote the second most popular book next to it?
  - forkandwait 16y ago
    Is Atlas Shrugged the second most popular book next to the bible? A cite would be cool. Also, nobody likes people like John Galt or those who try to follow him; some of us think that there is as much blind faith to strictly follow economists silly models as it does to follow any other religion.
    - michaelchisari 16y ago
      I believe that claim is a reference to a 1991 survey conducted by the Library of Congress of 2,000 Book Of The Month readers, so take that as you will. Atlas Shrugged has sold around 7 million copies since it was published, which puts it at around half as many copies as The Hitchhikers Guide To The Galaxy.
      - brudgers 16y ago
        7 million copies sold puts Atlas Shrugged 33 million copies behind Jonathan Livingston Seagull etc. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-selling_books http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-selling_books
    - maxharris 16y ago
donniefitz2 16y ago
By the way, I didn't say Socialism wasn't defined. I clearly said the assumptions that he laid out were not defined. The larger ideas, like the goal of life. I don't think those concepts are addressed often, they are assumed. Meaning is more basic than truth.

by maratd 16y ago

michaelchisari 16y ago

Socialism was tried. Repeatedly. It always led to a totalitarian state. Marxist-Leninism is what you're referring to, and yes, that has led to totalitarianism. However, socialism predated Marx, and there are non-Marxist (and anti-Marxist) socialist philosophies. "From each according..." is not a tenet shared by all socialists.

niels_olson 16y ago
damn, sorry, meant to upvote.
ikujythujik 16y ago
Do you have a police force? fire service, public schools, roads? Then you have socialism.
forkandwait 16y ago
Also, Marx was really good at critiquing capitalism, but he never actually had a plan for after the revolution. Except to think everybody would be happy and a collective, pretty much perfect, rationalism would be manifest because of the dynamics of history. Then we would all just see the answer, which is to share and be nice. (He was a hegelian, remember, even if he didn't like to admit it.) Also ... its not like there was some blueprint that the Soviet Union applied as if they were building a machine tool on a large scale. The Soviet State has, in its large scale state organized brutality and corruption, is completely in line with Russian history (no offense to my Russian friends.... Russia is also soulful and brilliant).
maratd 16y ago
> "From each according..." is not a tenet shared by all socialists. Yes, of course. Something that is shared by all socialists is redistribution. If you're not redistributing something, then you're doing nothing. To redistribute something, you must infringe upon the liberties of the individual for the sake of another or a group of others. The more you do this, the faster you accelerate the march toward totalitarianism. For example, a minimal state that only provides a police force to enforce the laws and taxes individuals accordingly may take hundreds or even a thousand years to collapse into a totalitarian state. On the other hand, when you throw individual protections out the window, it may only take a few years. For example, contrary to popular belief, the period between the Russian revolution and Stalin's takeover was really interesting. It would take too long to go into it, but they tried some really exciting stuff and some of it worked. Unfortunately, when you discard individual liberty, it creates an opportunity for totalitarianism to step through the door.

brudgers 16y ago

>"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" Has it's origins in the Christian Bible - Acts 4:34-35.

maxharris 16y ago
This highlights one of the two major problems I have with religion: altruism. (The other thing I don't accept is faith as a valid method of obtaining knowledge.) In Atlas Shrugged, John Galt says, "I swear by my life and my love of it, that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine." Edit: Why the downvotes? The parent post quoted the Bible, so why is it invalid for me to quote the second most popular book next to it?
- forkandwait 16y ago
  Is Atlas Shrugged the second most popular book next to the bible? A cite would be cool. Also, nobody likes people like John Galt or those who try to follow him; some of us think that there is as much blind faith to strictly follow economists silly models as it does to follow any other religion.
  - michaelchisari 16y ago
    I believe that claim is a reference to a 1991 survey conducted by the Library of Congress of 2,000 Book Of The Month readers, so take that as you will. Atlas Shrugged has sold around 7 million copies since it was published, which puts it at around half as many copies as The Hitchhikers Guide To The Galaxy.
    - brudgers 16y ago
      7 million copies sold puts Atlas Shrugged 33 million copies behind Jonathan Livingston Seagull etc. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-selling_books http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-selling_books
  - maxharris 16y ago

donniefitz2 16y ago

By the way, I didn't say Socialism wasn't defined. I clearly said the assumptions that he laid out were not defined. The larger ideas, like the goal of life. I don't think those concepts are addressed often, they are assumed. Meaning is more basic than truth.