You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: AHHHH! STEEM's down! What ever will we do with ourselves? Also, some thoughts on "Democratic Socialism"
Socialism is by definition incompatible with individual freedom, there is no way around it, no matter how many people vote for it.
I don't understand how some people still believe socialism is a good thing, haven't they seen what happens in literally every socialist country?
I bet that guy is one of those socialists that whenever this ideology fails begins to say that wasn't "real socialism".
The only path to prosperity is through freedom, and socialism is not compatible with freedom, it never will be.
I agree that authoritarianism is completely incompatible with individual freedom/responsibility, and that the word "socialism" has been quite actively used by authoritarians over the last century especially.
I disagree that socialism is necessarily authoritarian, and the fact that most anarchist philosophers over the past 400 years have identified as libertarian socialists certainly shows that.
Just like authoritarian capitalism is always going to be violent, as is authoritarian socialism, or any other authoritarian system.
Anarchy is the key, everything after the hyphen is personal preference.
Can you give me an example of socialism that was applied without totalitarianism?
The Rainbow Gatherings, any number of intentional communities like East Wind, Black Bear Ranch, Findhorn, et al, basically every single human community pre-agriculture, and in much of the world right up until the Christians came to conquer everyone.
Again, most all of the great anarchists were libertarian socialists: Bakunin, Berkman, Goldman, Graeber, Kropotkin, Proudhon, Reich, Rocker... just to name a few.
If you look at the modern world, most every example of capitalism is also applied with totalitarianism. We already know that the state, the belief in "authority", and the willingness to do violence to others is the problem, why would you assume that it bastardizes some economic/social ideas, and not others?
Are you talking about communities before Marx even existed? And I have no problem for people who decide to live in communes, the problem is when they want to force everyone to live under the "rules" of that communist/socialist ideology.
There is a big difference. In a capitalist country, people are free to create their own communities or communes and live there with their communist ideals. But in a socialist/communist country (and I say country not little communities like The Rainbow Gatherings) it would be impossible for a group of people to create their own free market community, with private property and a price system based on supply and demand.
In America (and pretty much every "capitalist" country) you are free to create your commune, in well known socialists/communists countries like North Korea or Venezuela (where I live) you cannot have a community with a free market system. A commune might be something sustainable in small scale, not in a big scale
Let's see, I understand a totalitarian government can also accept private property, what I say is that when a government starts a socialist revolution it always ends in disaster. Besides, the most peaceful and prosperous countries on Earth don't have a socialist system, they all have economic freedom and a market closely resembling the "ideal" free market.