The memes really describe the whole thing very well. The needs of many do not outweigh the need of the few. Why? Because you can't even really get a good handle on things that the many needs. Everyone is an individual and we need different things. Eliminate a lot of these things blocking people from living a more free life. Freedom to pursue their own health, wealth, happiness, creative expression, etc. Stop hindering them with taxes and laws that only create a new way to steal money from them and that don't come close to giving them what they really want, need, or even asked for.
The needs of the many are inseparable from the needs of the few, since the "many" is just zooming out and looking at a larger sample of the "few". I don't see the problem being with the idea of taking care of the needs of the many, or in having a society that is structured to make sure as many as possible are healthy, wealthy, and well... but socialism when used in ANY political context is simply an excuse to centralize power & wealth among a handful of folks willing to use violence, and never actually has anything to do with being social or helping society.
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.
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?
basically every single human community pre-agriculture
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.
most every example of capitalism is also applied with totalitarianism
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
why would you assume that it bastardizes some economic/social ideas, and not others
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.
I think McCarthyism made the US shy away from socialism for a long time and even the left wing party is called the Democrats. There will always be a pecking order on the chicken farm, no such thing as being free and equal.
The 2 wolves and a sheep story is one example of an event here in my country as a democratic country. Where in congress or senate, whenever they are filing a bill/law, they finalize it through votes of the lawmakers. It's just funny because the lawmakers are divided in 2 groups namely "opposition" and the "pro-administration" and of course and it is happening all the time that bill under the "pro" always passed while "oppositions" mostly declined. It is because they are infavor of the current ones. Just my 2 cents.
Definitely seems like the way I would expect it to play out. Give the masses a false dichotomy, then the masses think that it's not just a corporate boardroom making decisions about how they can live.
Your post was upvoted by @steem-ua, new Steem dApp, using UserAuthority for algorithmic post curation!
Your UA account score is currently 6.288 which ranks you at #199 across all Steem accounts.
Your rank has dropped 1 places in the last three days (old rank 198).
In our last Algorithmic Curation Round, consisting of 441 contributions, your post is ranked at #297.
Evaluation of your UA score:
You've built up a nice network.
The readers appreciate your great work!
Try to work on user engagement: the more people that interact with you via the comments, the higher your UA score!
I'm curious, if @steem-ua is looking at comment interaction, would something like getting comments from this account, @rewards-pool, and @minnowsupport and not replying to those comments be something that negatively reflects?
The memes really describe the whole thing very well. The needs of many do not outweigh the need of the few. Why? Because you can't even really get a good handle on things that the many needs. Everyone is an individual and we need different things. Eliminate a lot of these things blocking people from living a more free life. Freedom to pursue their own health, wealth, happiness, creative expression, etc. Stop hindering them with taxes and laws that only create a new way to steal money from them and that don't come close to giving them what they really want, need, or even asked for.
Well said.
The needs of the many are inseparable from the needs of the few, since the "many" is just zooming out and looking at a larger sample of the "few". I don't see the problem being with the idea of taking care of the needs of the many, or in having a society that is structured to make sure as many as possible are healthy, wealthy, and well... but socialism when used in ANY political context is simply an excuse to centralize power & wealth among a handful of folks willing to use violence, and never actually has anything to do with being social or helping society.
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.
It scared me!
Posted using Partiko Android
Ya, it's always pretty freaky when STEEM is down
I think McCarthyism made the US shy away from socialism for a long time and even the left wing party is called the Democrats. There will always be a pecking order on the chicken farm, no such thing as being free and equal.
No reason to live on the farm; step outside and things change dramatically :-)
No I will stay inside my little castle, at least I know my wife is boss there.
By the way she has cooked up and frozen meals for the family as well.
The 2 wolves and a sheep story is one example of an event here in my country as a democratic country. Where in congress or senate, whenever they are filing a bill/law, they finalize it through votes of the lawmakers. It's just funny because the lawmakers are divided in 2 groups namely "opposition" and the "pro-administration" and of course and it is happening all the time that bill under the "pro" always passed while "oppositions" mostly declined. It is because they are infavor of the current ones. Just my 2 cents.
Definitely seems like the way I would expect it to play out. Give the masses a false dichotomy, then the masses think that it's not just a corporate boardroom making decisions about how they can live.
Hi @kennyskitchen!
Your post was upvoted by @steem-ua, new Steem dApp, using UserAuthority for algorithmic post curation!
Your UA account score is currently 6.288 which ranks you at #199 across all Steem accounts.
Your rank has dropped 1 places in the last three days (old rank 198).
In our last Algorithmic Curation Round, consisting of 441 contributions, your post is ranked at #297.
Evaluation of your UA score:
Feel free to join our @steem-ua Discord server
Thanks for the up-vote!
I'm curious, if @steem-ua is looking at comment interaction, would something like getting comments from this account, @rewards-pool, and @minnowsupport and not replying to those comments be something that negatively reflects?