Socialism and Mutual Obligation

Anyone with two eyes knows that in class society there is class struggle. Maybe you don't know what it is. Maybe you don't want to know, but I am aware of class struggle as a major characteristic of society.

If you live with other like-minded people, no doubt you don't struggle with them.

??? LOL!!!!

No government has presided over a settled, established, functioning socialist economic system.

How does a capitalist government know who should pay payroll taxes and know how much they've paid? How do they know who you work for?

 

I’m well aware of what “it” is. It’s a game they have convinced you to play knowing you can’t win.

It’s a game where young able bodied individuals end up in the streets chanting (demanding or begging someone to “give” them socialism) and accidentally setting themselves on fire instead of using their actual abilities to start a worker owned business. It’s a game where older able bodied and minded “socialists” end up sitting in front of a television or a keyboard after working eight hours for the man shaking their fist in the air, typing furiously about how socialism has never existed, and cheering the young people in the streets (begging or demanding someone “give” them socialism) instead of using their abilities to start or grow a worker owned business.

Again, nobody wants socialism. It’s fun to riot and set stuff on fire and camp in a park for a while, but the actual WORK it takes to attain a measure of socialism is a no go.

I live with my wife. I live in a community of Republican and Democratic capitalists with some very socialistic behaviors. Nobody cares who practices real socialism. Most oppose populist socialism that is just redistribution of capitalistic surplus by governments that care nothing for need or merit.

Almost everyone is capable of owning and managing production. I worked some when I was in college for a man with an IQ of about 80, a speech impediment and a limp. He ran his own little lawn care business. I’m sure he would have loved a business partner to help with things he wasn’t good at. But he had to hire budding capitalists by the hour because all the socialists were in the their Soviet flag draped rooms smoking weed , in lectures learning about failed socialist experiments, or on a street somewhere chanting and begging for someone to “give” them socialism. People who say they want socialism but aren’t actively working towards owning a business, starting a cooperative, or becoming self sufficient aren’t serious socialists.

They are like a kid that dreams of going to the planet Saturn and because he has that dream he thinks it makes him an astronaut. He has no interest in or intention of learning about math or physics. Doesn’t know what is on Saturn or what it takes to get there. But incessantly runs around telling people he’s an astronaut.

And it never will because the two things are mutually exclusive.

By being a redistributing agent of capitalistic surplus under the model of a surveillance state. But it doesn’t have a clue what the abilities or needs of anyone are either.

 

Absolutely. It’s a fun subject for some to pontificate on, but there’s no interest in that kind of life.

 

A pure socialist system you envision is rainbows and unicorns. Can’t exist—won’t exist—it’s a waste of time mooning over it.

No, I have no interest in a commune. I wouldn’t like it and it’s not necessary to live a socialist lifestyle.

Money is irrelevant. What you refer to as pure socialism eschews barter and trade as well as money. It’s impossible to remove any of them from any society through evolutionary process or force. Anyone who believes money and trade can be removed from society doesn’t understand human nature or what resources are necessary for human survival.

It’s also impossible to have a business that’s non profit. If inputs equal output there is no value to the owners be it monetary, food, or non food necessities. There must be value to the owners whether they are socialist or capitalist.

What is essential? This is where things really break down. What products of business are essential? Food? What sort of food? Gruel or meat? Shelter? A one room shack or a multi room abode with big screen TV and Internet access? Is electricity essential? Transportation? Transportation for what purposes over what distance?

To answer these questions for a society, there MUST be centralized consolidated POWER. Your four points are mutually exclusive and CANNOT coexist.

MG was a ruler who raped the natural resources of his country and strong armed raping natural resources of other countries to afford enough money to keep most (but not all) of “his people” happy enough not to try and kill him. He was not popular with the west because he took a lot of money from his raping of natural resources and used it to kill westerners. The money/resources he couldn’t get from raping natural resources he got from “trade” with communist nations. I’m not impressed.

All those negatives can exist without “money”. Money simply simplifies trade, and trade is essential to ANY society be it capitalistic, socialistic, or a mixture.

 

Socialism ALWAYS results in despotism, and must ALWAYS be imposed on people by FORCE - ALWAYS.

Just ask Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Castro, Maduro/Chavez, and Pol Pot.

 

Welfare has no place in federal government. Federal government is bound by the intent of the founders to treat people equally not to pick winners and losers. Welfare is a good thing where it is needed. It should be delivered but not by federal government. Obviously government disagrees with me.

 

Socialism benefits the powerful, not the citizens. Hence an authoritarian government is necessary to maintain it. I have never seen an exception.

 

The planet doesn’t care if elephants or polar bears become extinct. It didn’t care when 99.9% of species that existed went extinct. It doesn’t care why any of them went extinct or how long it took. The planet didn’t care about chemical processes on earth before biological processes began and it won’t care when the sun burns out and biological processes cease.

We are not straining the resources of the planet through population. Poor decisions are impacting some, like mismanagement of polders and mangroves in Bangladesh. Some think the climate here is too harsh and wish to escape to Mars.

Agree both Soviet and American systems are set up to fleece sheep. That’s why I advocate for not being one of the sheep. Don’t play their game.

Controls of free markets are part of the sheering process.

 

You wouldn’t last long without capitalism’s largess! You have no idea what it takes to sustain human life. You can’t eat cooperation. You can’t cooperate and magically be warm and dry in the rain. It doesn’t matter how cooperative you are, crops don’t grow in temperate climates in the winter. If a natural disaster strikes and destroys logistics cooperation doesn’t supply food and water from nothing!

ONLY stores of wealth can sustain human life on the majority of this planet.

Native Americans “stored” dog meat “on the paw”. And dried meat. They didn’t eat “cooperation” when food was naturally seasonally unavailable.

No, practical socialism is what counts. You don’t even understand how indigenous people stored wealth to survive.

Speaking for myself, no. Communes are silly to me and I would hate such an arrangement. What makes you think I think communes are the answer?

No. Socialist minded people are not socialist action people. They want to benefit from the largess of capitalism while they complain they aren’t getting their “fair share” of it. You speak of businesses only making essentials. You nor any other “socialist minded” individual would survive 2 weeks on essentials. You will complain about capitalism till the day you die. You will suckle it’s teat until the day you die. And when you die the only socialism you will have participated in will be theoretical.

I am on record on PF in many places denouncing welfare for the well off. It’s offered to me personally and I refuse it. Yet it does make more sense to subsidize producers than non producers no matter your socialist leanings. And you forget it’s the non producer benefit recipient’s vote that keeps the fascist business/government alliance alive and well. It’s a symbiotic relationship.

LOL. Money cannot be removed by force or evolution from society. I’m on grid. The grid is consumer owned and democratically consumer controlled. I’m very self sufficient.

Your pie in the sky socialism has not, doesn’t, and will never exist. You are wasting your time and energy. Meanwhile crank and I are happily living as socialists and reaping the physical and peace of mind rewards of doing so. You will always be frustrated with the world and having meaningless conversations about pure socialism that will NEVER exist. You will never have physical security of food, shelter, or other essentials because you are unwilling to work to achieve it and those who share your ideas on socialism are unwilling to as well. I suggest you learn to enjoy capitalism because that’s what will provide for you your entire life.

 

Yeah, it's just getting more and more popular. That's all.

 

All six points are characteristics and effects of our capitalist system. The solution would only be to eliminate money, and that necessarily means a moneyless, communist system. But that must gradually emerge within a system that is dedicated to serve the people, and that isn't capitalism! So what you're saying is that it requires a "socialistic" system within which money can gradually diminish and be eliminated under a communist result.

Good luck.

 

Is it? I see distribution of capitalism’s bounty being more popular. But not socialism.

 

https://news.gallup.com/poll/268766/socialism-popular-capitalism-among-young-adults.aspx


https://theweek.com/articles/834078/3-reasons-why-socialism-gaining-popularity-america

 

Dude, you cannot have a nation-sized circle of trust, because you cannot know 350 million people well enough to know they've earned your trust. And once again, the ENTIRE PREMISE of shared resources collapses without that trust. No mutually interdependent collective can exist without certainty of reciprocation. The commitment to the circle cannot be maintained - because the motivation to commit comes from the certainty that it will be repaid. As soon as members stop doing their part to maintain that trust, the confidence of the remainder is eroded to the point that they will start to give less than 100%.

It's a system held in balance by commitment - not force. Without that commitment you have nothing. And with certainty in your fellows, you cannot have commitment.

 

If you think a comfortable, choice-filled middle class life attained without effort is socialism, then OF COURSE it's going to be appealing. That's like saying people like a million dollars more than they like than ten dollars, and thinking that means something.

 

The irony being that the 'young people' our pal thinks are embracing socialism, are actually the most capitalist generation we've seen since the 1980s.

They want the boons of profiteering, and want none of the labour of the collective.

 

Whoever you've been palling around with in collectivism-land, they've been deceiving you. Might be worth your while to spend some time around bona-fide Commies, if you can find any. I suggest groups like Twelve Tribes (religious collective). They're the real deal, and so have plenty of insight into the mechanics and day to day stuff. You don't have to like their religious beliefs to benefit from their lived experience of Common Purse Collective.

 

Bingo, and bingo!

But our friends need to do more than just enjoy capitalism - they need to EMBRACE and APPRECIATE it.

 

The six points start out with a false premise. Indigenous peoples most certainly used money pre-colonialism. Some money was of practical value like furs or edibles—other less practical like shells. Even the Inca who had no physical representation of money used the concept of an “I owe you” to use in trades where immediate barter of physical goods was impractical.

As I’ve said several times now, you simply can’t eliminate money. You can eliminate fiat currency (which is responsible for a lot of problems you attribute to money) and even eliminate the non fiat barter item a society is using for money currently. But soon another item of value will fill the void of the one you removed. You can outlaw money and the next day people will be stuffing Little Debbie snacks in their sock drawer to facilitate trade with their buddies later on.

What is more responsible for consumerism, greed, hoarding, destruction of local environment etc. than the concept of money is the advent of grain agriculture based societies without which unproductive labor would be impossible even with money present in the society. People who think money is the underlying problem clearly don’t understand human needs vs. wants and how they are supplied.

Another flaw with the elimination of money from society proposition was alluded to with the Inca. In large society movement of essential goods is not easy. People in North Dakota need oranges and Floridians need canola oil. Fine, just trade so everyone has what they need. But the two crops can’t be traded straight across because of different harvest schedules. This can be mitigated in some cases with storage but at some point Florida may not have much motivation to send oranges to North Dakota. Then what? When money is an option it’s no problem. Without money you would need what the Inca had—a central planner with the authority to kill whoever didn’t send oranges to ND. Only three things can make such arrangements work—absolute central authority, trust/integrity, or money. That level of integrity doesn’t exist in humans. You don’t want money or dictatorial powers. Therefore any notion of such a “pure socialism” developing is frankly pure fantasy. I much prefer realistic solutions we can benefit from today.

What are those solutions? Forming cooperatives. Starting your own business or worker owned business. Cost sharing medical bills. Patronizing cooperatives or other worker owned businesses. Becoming as self sufficient as possible or reliant on local/family resources instead of central planning/redistribution capitalism funded government if self reliance isn’t an option.

 

That isn’t socialism. It’s redistribution of capitalistic success. I know that’s popular. That’s what I’ve been saying.

 

Or rather, that level of trust/integrity can only exist in small groups - where there is no hiding from the watchful eyes of your fellows, nor from the relationships which bring obligation.

 

Yes, you would think they would. They claim to hate the thing they can’t let go of.

 

Yes. Small groups can facilitate accountability. Absolutely. That was actually the main reason hunter/gatherer societies were successful.

My parents would never have described themselves as socialists. But when they told me “if you don’t work, you don’t eat”, it was the real deal, not just hyperbole.

 

The ever-present example of socialism which cafe socialists are oblivious to. When a declaration is all that's required, it's no wonder they can't see the forest for the trees. If you're determined to note only the declaration, and have no use for action, then actions without declaration will be ignored. Thus the millions upon millions of examples of lived socialism are invisible to such people.

And the premise 'work to eat' is ignored with prejudice. The very foundation principles of collectivism - obligation and labour - are anathema. In fact the socialists-in-name-only, are the very people who demanded we reject social obligations and conformities. They themselves are responsible for the failure of the culture they claim to want.

 

Perhaps the cafe socialist is just the one who wishes to game the “from each according to their ability, to each according to their need” system.

Socialism is touted as fairness, equality, and absence of greed. But when the prejudice against obligation and responsibility raises its ugly head, the smooth veneer is scratched away, revealing the envy and covetousness that motivates the incessant demand someone give them socialism—or else.