4 ms·

I recall a Fox News segment a few years ago (can't find a link to it now) about how encouraging sharing in schools would lead to socialism/communism.

quacked 5y ago
I'm sure neither you nor I watch Fox News; I typically recommend people ignore cable news completely. What does lead to socialism/communism is the modern urban/suburban American lifestyle. If you grow up in a fully state-funded education system, have all of your personal outcomes controlled and motivated by government initiatives, and live in a city that is ostensibly fully controlled (facilities, transportation, construction, etc.) by the government, you start to believe that all good things come from the state, and you start to believe that all problems can be fixed by more legislation and rules, paid for by more taxes and enforced by state actors. I've been around too many disparate sets of people whose only understanding of how large-scale problems can be solved is "more government" to think that I'm seeing a phenomenon that's unique to my own experience. Most American citizens are disconnected from law, fighting, farming, construction, manufacturing, etc., and the ones that aren't usually range from weak to strong conservative.
- UncleSlacky 5y ago
  Socialism/communism isn't "when the government does stuff"* - you should really read up on what they actually are (though given the US education system, you'd be forgiven for not knowing). *Credit to Richard D. Wolff: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ysZC0JOYYWw&t=2494s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ysZC0JOYYWw&t=2494s
  - quacked 5y ago
    Of course, my mistake! I only learned what socialism was just yesterday from a series of Tucker Carlson videos. Would you be so kind as to explain how socialism does not involve decentralized control of a set of resources by each individual member of the group, allocated through a codified representative legal system and enforced by members of the same group? I'm sure my underdeveloped American mind can't grasp any nuance past "government bad, company good"!
    - UncleSlacky 5y ago
      I can't put it better than the very first line of the Wikipedia definition: "Socialism is a political, social, and economic philosophy encompassing a range of economic and social systems characterised by social ownership of the means of production." Why are you now referring to a "group" and "members of the same group" whereas previously you referred to the "state" and "state actors"? These are not (necessarily) the same things.
      - quacked 5y ago
        Is there a significant difference between a group of people controlling resources that are also following and enforcing laws and the state, except for the number of people that are participating in the enforcement? If you have the ability to carry out or enforce a law, which is maintained by a group of people, you all become the state, and your neighbors/"community members" acting against you effectively becomes state action. My point is that people who rely on the modern government for most things can be easily convinced that "social ownership of the means of production", as the wikipedia page puts it, is the best economic system to aspire to, because they perceive themselves as already partially there. They experience resources as easily obtained and distributed by a group of people they "elected", and so the mental leap to "let us use this system for everything, and we'll simply participate in the distribution and eventually it'll be socialism" is very easy to make. This leap is not as easy to make for those that actually participate in the production and organization of industry and society.

quacked 5y ago

I'm sure neither you nor I watch Fox News; I typically recommend people ignore cable news completely. What does lead to socialism/communism is the modern urban/suburban American lifestyle. If you grow up in a fully state-funded education system, have all of your personal outcomes controlled and motivated by government initiatives, and live in a city that is ostensibly fully controlled (facilities, transportation, construction, etc.) by the government, you start to believe that all good things come from the state, and you start to believe that all problems can be fixed by more legislation and rules, paid for by more taxes and enforced by state actors. I've been around too many disparate sets of people whose only understanding of how large-scale problems can be solved is "more government" to think that I'm seeing a phenomenon that's unique to my own experience. Most American citizens are disconnected from law, fighting, farming, construction, manufacturing, etc., and the ones that aren't usually range from weak to strong conservative.

UncleSlacky 5y ago
Socialism/communism isn't "when the government does stuff"* - you should really read up on what they actually are (though given the US education system, you'd be forgiven for not knowing). *Credit to Richard D. Wolff: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ysZC0JOYYWw&t=2494s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ysZC0JOYYWw&t=2494s
- quacked 5y ago
  Of course, my mistake! I only learned what socialism was just yesterday from a series of Tucker Carlson videos. Would you be so kind as to explain how socialism does not involve decentralized control of a set of resources by each individual member of the group, allocated through a codified representative legal system and enforced by members of the same group? I'm sure my underdeveloped American mind can't grasp any nuance past "government bad, company good"!
  - UncleSlacky 5y ago
    I can't put it better than the very first line of the Wikipedia definition: "Socialism is a political, social, and economic philosophy encompassing a range of economic and social systems characterised by social ownership of the means of production." Why are you now referring to a "group" and "members of the same group" whereas previously you referred to the "state" and "state actors"? These are not (necessarily) the same things.
    - quacked 5y ago
      Is there a significant difference between a group of people controlling resources that are also following and enforcing laws and the state, except for the number of people that are participating in the enforcement? If you have the ability to carry out or enforce a law, which is maintained by a group of people, you all become the state, and your neighbors/"community members" acting against you effectively becomes state action. My point is that people who rely on the modern government for most things can be easily convinced that "social ownership of the means of production", as the wikipedia page puts it, is the best economic system to aspire to, because they perceive themselves as already partially there. They experience resources as easily obtained and distributed by a group of people they "elected", and so the mental leap to "let us use this system for everything, and we'll simply participate in the distribution and eventually it'll be socialism" is very easy to make. This leap is not as easy to make for those that actually participate in the production and organization of industry and society.