The (civil) (Obama-free) socialism thread


Just_A_Guy
 Share

Recommended Posts

For me, I'm not really building towards anything so much as wary of where conversations like this tend to go: There are 'levels' of Socialist behavior which are acceptable to even the most strident anti-Socialist who is being intellectually honest.

I know this thread is kind of snowballing; but my own interest revolves primarily around whether a state can implement socialist policy by means other than threat of force (even if that force is only as a last resort after Volgadon's proposals of fines, "voluntary" emigration, etc. are disregarded by the individuals being punished).

For instance:

The development of the atom bomb - Fat man and little boy. The means of production for this was owned by the government.

I'm not sure that's right. A cursory review of Wikipedia indicates that Kellogg and DuPont (among others) were heavily involved. At its height the Manhattan project employed 129,000 workers, only 1,800 of whom were military personnel - the rest, presumably, civilian contractors. The bomb itself, of course, was state property - purchased, with socialized tax contributions, from the private-sector manufacturers (who, of course, were heavily regulated - couldn't just build another one for Howard Hughes' private island or something).

But I am interested in this idea of socializing the means of production. Because at its core, it seems to me that the "means of production" is nothing more or less than the individual worker. So, to what extent does a socialist state (as the ostensible voice of society) have control over the individual worker and any classical notion of "human rights"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 73
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

The United Order is FAITH based... with those who choose to participate. It isn't compulsory. All things are shared, but through a shared moral code that each give according to their strengths.

Because of that choice, it's easier to choose to build up Zion... than to have it forced amongst and throughout a country.

One is choice; the other can be construed as slavery.

You cannot legislate morality. But you can have a group of people who share strengths, talents and morality to build up a society.

That can't be fabricated by man. The natural man will always find a way to dominate over another. It takes higher ideals than purely one's own self-interest.

But it must be voluntary with a shared moral code. No moral code? It dissintegrates.

there are plenty of examples of socialism which is voluntary and in which people share a goal, an ideal, and a moral code. It gets excruciatingly tiresome when people equate socialism with force, as it is obvious to me that I'm getting no further than I would with a brick wall.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know this thread is kind of snowballing; but my own interest revolves primarily around whether a state can implement socialist policy by means other than threat of force (even if that force is only as a last resort after Volgadon's proposals of fines, "voluntary" emigration, etc. are disregarded by the individuals being punished).

What I posted holds true for any state. You even get to read such an example in Sunday School...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hidden

there are plenty of examples of socialism which is voluntary and in which people share a goal, an ideal, and a moral code. It gets excruciatingly tiresome when people equate socialism with force, as it is obvious to me that I'm getting no further than I would with a brick wall.

Translation: "I am frustrated that you will not accept my special definition as final."

Link to comment

volgadon,

You live in Israel. This is a faith-based AND culturally united country. You also share the Israel history together. IMO, there is a shared moral code.

I was looking up Jezreel Valley on wikipedia, but I don't think it goes into much detail. Can you please provide a link so we can learn more about what you're trying to teach us?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Enjoy beating up that strawman of yours.

Would that it were a strawman. Sadly, I am completely correct, and you are wrong.

Britannica Online defines "socialism" as

social and economic doctrine that calls for public rather than private ownership or control of property and natural resources. According to the socialist view, individuals do not live or work in isolation but live in cooperation with one another. Furthermore, everything that people produce is in some sense a social product, and everyone who contributes to the production of a good is entitled to a share in it. Society as a whole, therefore, should own or at least control property for the benefit of all its members.

Yours is a special definition, however much you may stamp your foot and insist otherwise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Would that it were a strawman. Sadly, I am completely correct, and you are wrong.

Britannica Online defines "socialism" as

social and economic doctrine that calls for public rather than private ownership or control of property and natural resources. According to the socialist view, individuals do not live or work in isolation but live in cooperation with one another. Furthermore, everything that people produce is in some sense a social product, and everyone who contributes to the production of a good is entitled to a share in it. Society as a whole, therefore, should own or at least control property for the benefit of all its members.

Yours is a special definition, however much you may stamp your foot and insist otherwise.

Argument by dictionary, cute. You do realise that you have completely misread this, right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

More good points. While we can argue similarities between the law of consecration and socialism, we can't use socialism to force the existence of the law of consecration, IMO.

I agree with skippy on the difficulty to encourage hard work in a socialist society.

Would there be a way to get around that problem in a socialist society?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

there are plenty of examples of socialism which is voluntary and in which people share a goal, an ideal, and a moral code. It gets excruciatingly tiresome when people equate socialism with force, as it is obvious to me that I'm getting no further than I would with a brick wall.

So are there examples where a person can be [geographically] in a socialist society and choose not to participate?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

volgadon,

I'm reviewing your posts in this thread. I haven't seen a clear definition of socialism that you've put forth. You mention the Jezreel Valley as an example, but not a definition.

Vort put forth a definition from a dictionary. A dictionary to help us all come to an agreement of what socialism is.

If we can't define it or articulate it, we don't know what we're talking about.

My posts have all been from my own mentality and things I've learned. Please help us understand. That is the point of this thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

there are plenty of examples of socialism which is voluntary and in which people share a goal, an ideal, and a moral code. It gets excruciatingly tiresome when people equate socialism with force, as it is obvious to me that I'm getting no further than I would with a brick wall.

That is EXACTLY my point! In those cases, there IS a shared goal, ideal and moral code!

Without willingly supporting such, it is coercion.

Will socialism survive without it? I doubt it.

Can such a moral code come from the government? I doubt it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because you are reading force into it. Force is not socialism. Force may be one of the means to bring about and enforce such a society (or any society), but not everyone believes that it should be employed.

You may be right.

But most of us here (myself included) have trouble comprehending a full government (not just a few people getting together) implementing socialism without making it required for the whole society.

I personally will need an example to help me wrap my head around the concept.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

volgadon,

I'm reviewing your posts in this thread. I haven't seen a clear definition of socialism that you've put forth. You mention the Jezreel Valley as an example, but not a definition.

I mentioned it as an example when you claimed that socialism doesn't encourage people to perform better. Jubilee of Settlement in the Emeq

The Pioneer Settlement Museum, Kibbutz Yifat, Gems in Israel, Israel Attractions

Jezreel Valley, work drying the swamps., VIA (Visual Information Access), Harvard University

These are a few, but most of the sources I could link to are in Hebrew.

What I am trying to say is that swamps covered about 30% of the Jezreel Valley. They bred mosquitos and prevented significant cultivation. The people who drained them were mainly socialist, who lived in hellish conditions and engaged in months, even years of back-breaking labour in pursuit of their ideal.

Vort put forth a definition from a dictionary. A dictionary to help us all come to an agreement of what socialism is.

Argument by dictionary, in essence, would constrain us to the very short dictionary definition. It, BTW, is a common tactic used by people to deny that we are Christian, by claiming that the dictionary defines us as polytheists.

Ironically, Vort's reference doesn't support what he was syaing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is EXACTLY my point! In those cases, there IS a shared goal, ideal and moral code!

Without willingly supporting such, it is coercion.

Will socialism survive without it? I doubt it.

Can such a moral code come from the government? I doubt it.

I'm tired of people claiming that it isn't socialism, that socialism is force. Of course for socialism to succeed there has to be a shared goal, ideal and moral code

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You may be right.

But most of us here (myself included) have trouble comprehending a full government (not just a few people getting together) implementing socialism without making it required for the whole society.

I personally will need an example to help me wrap my head around the concept.

If one doesn't believe in armed takeovers, then a majority of society will have to agree. That is it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You may be right.

But most of us here (myself included) have trouble comprehending a full government (not just a few people getting together) implementing socialism without making it required for the whole society.

I personally will need an example to help me wrap my head around the concept.

It's easy to wrap your head around the concept if you imagine a society in the Celestial State living under a Theocracy. Socialism expects the best out of everybody and that everybody shares the same value system.

But, since we are still strapped with human failings in this mortal state, implementing Socialism outside of the boundaries of a family, or even a big community of homogenous human values (say, a community of temple-worthy LDS members), is not possible without some form of force. Hence, in an application the size of a nation, you will need an authoritarian, or dictatorship, or communist, or any single-party government to implement it. That single party then dictates what the society's values are, what the needs are, how to provide the resources to meet the need, etc. It is, therefore, expedient that the society does not practice religious freedom as differing religions tend to form differing social values.

Edited by anatess
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If one doesn't believe in armed takeovers, then a majority of society will have to agree. That is it.

And if I understand right, the minority simply must acquiesce or face fines, other limitations, or the prospect of emigration?

Again (and apologies if I wasn't clear) - I'm not talking about socialism generally (ie communal, idealistic endeavors like the kibbutzim you mention) - I'm talking about state implementation of socialist ideas.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The culture of the United States is unique. Everyone is welcome here (following the laws of course). Many people come from different lands with various cultures and values.

I'm looking at the United States and how it seems to be on the brink of "the point of no return" to move towards a socialistic society - implemented through coercion laws that are voted on by the people (mob mentality).

Our laws end up being the code of morality. Our societal problem is that we don't have a shared sense of morality. We can see that in various states across the country. Morality is in decline and makes our people ripe for an ideological 'takeover' implemented through government measures and laws.

In that sense, I'm fearful of a "government takeover" of a people who do not have each other's best interests at heart.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share