Socialism and Mutual Obligation

Yes, it is. It's how nations have always survived and prospered. Nations have always been made up of small circles of trust, living under a broader umbrella together.

 

1) It's the easiest thing in the world to do in a capitalist system. And not EVERY member has to be productive. A small proportion can be supported (the very old, the young, the disabled). Even a collective of ten can support that small percentage, if every other member is meeting their obligations.

2) What does any of this have to do with money?

3) Again, nothing to do with money. This is about PEOPLE pulling their own weight (and adding a little extra for the lean times).

4) People .... it's about people. This entire thread is about the fundamental social obligations of each individual within a human collective.

 

Well I mean, it might if I was talking about State Socialism .. but the beast under discussion could not be further from that model. What we're discussing is the eternal 'social mammal' model. The Pack. The Tribe. The village. It has always existed - and continues to exist as the primary model in every corner of the world - in every culture and politic. Every stable nation is made up of many such packs.

 

From previous exchanges I’m convinced we are both living the same principles even though we are applying them a bit differently. I think that’s a pretty good advertisement for real socialism. It doesn’t have to be dogmatic, or glum, or in any way unpleasant. I think both proclaimed socialists and those who erroneously equate socialism with authoritarianism have taken a beautiful thing and defaced it to the point what most see is a hideous beast. It’s a shame.

 

Didn't say anything about State Socialism .. but what ever you wish to call it .. it is like some kind of Authoritarian Borg Collective . having little to do with how a village works.

 

Again, couldn't have put it better.

Both sides have ****ed it up. One side thinks Socialism only exists as a unpleasant Politic, the other side thinks it's Medievalism ('peasants' slaving to support 'aristocrats'). Both think of it as something done to us, rather than as something all social mammals have chosen to do since we oozed out of the primordial mud. Socialism is merely the pack/tribe/village, where mutual obligation ensures the survival of members. It has nothing to do with politics at all, and socialists (and even communists - ie, those who go so far as to live via 'common purse') can be anywhere on the political spectrum, or not on it at all.

Having said that, if socialism were ever adopted as a State model, it would require of us exactly the same level of obligation (actually far more, because at that scale a brutal level of conformity is necessary). And the phonies who claim to be socialists would be the first to expire from the shock.

 

It's exactly how small collectives work. Obligation is the glue that keeps them together and functional - and has done for thousands of years.

Try running a small collective by telling everyone that they can do whatever they want - that they're not obliged to participate in the survival of the group. See how far you get.

 

Yes .. like an authoritarian borg collective how you described things... but this is not how small towns work . you are talking an Omish community or some such thing.

 

I'm talking about how ALL successful societies have worked, and still work, at that small collective level. It's only the First World West which has corrupted the model. A fatal mistake - precipitated by the hubris arising out of immense safety and privilege.

In fact our abandonment of the model is the reason you don't even recognise it. It's outside your lived experience, and it's possible you imagine all societies operate on the 'every man for himself' approach we in the First World have adopted.

 

I think many underestimate children. The scenario you paint reminds me of a few survival books I’ve read from various apocalyptic type events. Children can contribute to that pool more than most think.

I believe too many people teach their kids that they’re not old enough to work. I’m not talking about sending a ten year old to work a sewing machine at some dark factory. But they can definitely take care of live stock, clean, even work a tractor (I’ve seen it plenty of times). Kids learning to work is a good thing. They can definitely push their weight.

 

Asian kids do this. Not necessarily feed the goats, but they are required to contribute labour from early in life.

 

No, it isn't, it's simplistic to say it is.

 

It is not one or the other ... not a black vs white scenario.... it is neither "Every man for Himself" nor " Every man for the collective" ... it is a mixture of both.

Most of the time - as we all know - folks are mosty for themselves .. sometimes however ya gotta take one for the team .. sometimes .. the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few ... but this is not a general rule as you have described it - nor has every successful society - and none that you have described .. operate on the function of this rule.

The main issue was not your logic so much .. but your black vs white perspective.- with seemingly nothing in between ..which smacks of authoritarianism.

Some early tribal societies functioned on the basis of what is referred to in Anthropology as "Generalized Reciprocity" - where food and other things was collectively shared. This is what most closely approximates what I think you are trying to describe.

 

1) You're talking about the failed model we HAVE, which is irrelevant but does highlight the point well. No sustainable system can exist with a 'mixture', and our decaying communities are the evidence of that. That mixture breaks trust.

2) Again, this isn't about what people do now. And yes, all long-lived cultures/socieities have operated via the mutual obligation of the small collective.

3) The shades of grey exist within the sphere of the collective. The collective is simply the shape of survival. Authoritarianism? How could that be, when all such collectives are voluntary?

4) All social mammals live according to "generalized reciprocity", in one form or another. It remains the most successful model, to this day. The First World West's abandonment of the model in the late 20thC is the cause of all the social failure.

 

I have not talked about any "failed model" so no clue what you are talking about .. what is true is that our system has benefited greatly from wealth redistribution .. this I will not deny.

Your claim that all collectives are volintary is not true .. not true in China .. not in Stalin's Russia - and so on

 

Consider what you're proposing.

You want eight billion fed and housed .. but you want each of their stories to be factored in as a consideration and a response tailored to suit.

That kind of fantasy-thinking arises out of a sense of entitlement. People who want to be cared for, but want that care in a form which suits their personal preferences and comfort. It's basically a fight to avoid obligation. As long as it can be called 'complex', there remains loopholes for the avoidance of obligation.

In the meantime, feeding and housing people is VERY simple - because it applies to every living human. All other considerations/preferances are the individual's private business, and not at all relevant to those fundamentals of survival - and thus not the concern of any collective.

 

Don't know what your first sentence is about, sorry.

This thread has nothing to do with politics, so you're way off track.

 

Talk about fantasy, where did I say that?

 

Ah .. so you only want the richest and most privileged (ie, First Worlders) to be feted. Understand.

 

I understand one thing: you can't answer a question.

I understand another thing: you make stuff up.

 

What DID you mean, if not what I said?

 

You gave a scenario that made sense for something like a Kibbutz, where everyone is expected to carry their own weight for the benefit of the group

That breaks down when you get to larger civilizations, because not everyone can care for themselves and it would be uncivilized to let people starve, though they may pose a burden to others.

That is why I said your scenario is simplistic for a larger nation.

 

You have entirely misunderstood the premise.

On the larger scale (eg a nation), it's not ONE collective - as in some cringey 1940's sci fi novel - it's a society made up of many small collectives. You can never have a single entity collective at the nation scale without totalitarianism (and even then it will fail).

Go back and read through again, if you're genuinely interested in understanding. In a nutshell ... a solid society is built upon those many small voluntary collectives .. in which each member meets their obligation to be socially responsible within the context of that group. When this happens, no one 'falls through the net'. Totalitarian Govts are not needed, because everyone is already taken care of.

 

Well, the kind of "socialism" you're proposing is not true socialism, and is relatively simple to do because State money, infrastructure & support institutions are already in place. And I cannot honestly say what you're proposing is the kind of "socialism" that most are in search of, nor the kind that can catalyze any significant push for change.

Sure, there are communes/collectives one can join (or establish)...but every one of them relies on money, and every one of them maintains a life-line to modern capitalist civilization. In this sense, there's not a single one that can be called either "off-grid" or "self-sufficient." Members of such groups seek to simplify their lives in some way by escaping the "rat race", to reduce cost of living, and perhaps to live in a manner offering a greater sense of community/connectedness with others of like-mind. Basically, communes/collectives within capitalist nations function very similarly to families (perhaps one could view them as glorified large families). And, like a family, the commune/collective must bring in money to survive & function. And, if they sell products to the outside, then they're also a business (like a co-op). Overall, they're still consumers of capitalist goods/services, but have come together to reduce, for themselves, some of the burdens that come with capitalist-run societies.

(A) If you're speaking of communes/collectives where one is willing to remain tied to money & modern-day goods/services, then sure...you can join one or create your own. But the issue remains of (1) the continued reliance on money, monetary-based goods/services & infrastructure, and (2) even with the attractiveness of living more communally, most are put off with the idea of relinquishing the liberating benefits & comforts of modern technology, educational opportunities, science & research, travel & exploration opportunities, huge variety of arts/music & entertainment, recreational facilities, rich cultural mixtures, and many other opportunities that come with living in large societies. Most people don't like the idea of returning to the old days of constant toil & boredom.

With that said, as with any sub/micro-culture in a capitalist nation, it'll be difficult to stop a large corporation, the military, or Big Brother from disrupting and/or taking everything you have. Your commune/collective will be fine as long as Big Brother decides you're not a threat (and most are not). Still, the threat of changes in domestic policy adversely affecting one's operations hovers over the usual complications that come with simply maintaining membership & functionality of a commune/collective. But that's par for the course for any group that is neither off-grid, nor self-sufficient, and remains tied to the capitalist system.

(B) If you're speaking of a completely self-sufficient group having absolutely no need of a monetary system, nor modern goods/services...well then...tell that to the millions of indigenous groups worldwide once living the idyllic socialist lifestyle, then suddenly thrust into centuries of genocide, suffering, and loss of habitat & resources at the hands of colonialists. In fact, the primary motive behind colonialism was and still is capitalism, which must spread & conquer to survive. Precolonial indigenous groups thrived & traded (and with actual trade routes spanning the Americas) in fully socialist systems for 80,000+ years without "benefit" of currency or modern conveniences. And they lasted as long as they did because what they were doing worked, and worked well. The native cultures of the Americas were highly sophisticated & advanced in many ways.

Another example is the peasant villages of old England that lost once-freely accessible land they had worked and held (in common) when the King enacted the Enclosure Act/Movement and fenced off the commons. The commons were then handed over to private landowners to be used solely by them or their tenants. This practice spread all over Europe. Even today, feudalism is alive in the UK & elsewhere. Some proclaim we have now all entered an age of "techno-feudalism."

And we can't forget the Amish. This cooperative micro-society is still going strong after four centuries, and their numbers are still robust despite their rejection of outsiders joining their community. Next to the indigenous socialism of precolonial natives (who are almost no more), America's Amish represent the closest & most successful thing to a socialist collective we have in North America. Several factors are responsible for keeping them intact for so long, but one of the most important is that they are a true culture (with a history & lineage, beliefs, traditions, customs, centralizing religion, etc.), and that is the glue that holds them together. Modern communes/collectives tend to fail not only because they can't offer recruits a clear way to break the bondage of money & toil, but they lack the glue necessary to keep the group intact. A commune's energy may thus feel "dead", sterile, and one-dimensional...lacking the dynamics of historic cultures/civilizations.

Fortunately for the Amish, they're unlikely to ever pose a threat to the State simply because they refuse to allow outsiders in. They also keep to themselves, live a simple low-tech lifestyle, and don't get involved with the nation's politics. Instead their social & economic structure is centered around the Amish church. Members also respect their community leaders called "bishops." (Compare this to how leaders are commonly viewed in the nations around the world-----with fear, suspicion, distrust, hate, delusional reverence, disinterest, guarded hope, etc.)[/QUOTE]

 

I suspect what you're referring to is a commune/collective established within the borders of a capitalist society. Such a group is never completely self-sufficient, nor "off-grid", nor can it function without money. Money is its Achilles' heel, and is what blocks the group from achieving true socialism. This group can function only by maintaining a life-line to the big city. It's main benefit to members is a reduction in living costs. As such, a commune/collective cannot be called a pure socialist system, but rather a "cooperative capitalist" system. It's analogous to a car-pool program that reduces driving expenses for its members.

With that said, I'm unclear on what you mean by "lifestyle." But if you're referring to a socialist SYSTEM, then you can't have a pure socialist system if you wish to introduce money. However, if a monetary system is to be implemented, but with the goal of being as socialist as is possible, then the BEST layout is one in which ALL businesses are (1) non-profit, (2) completely worker owned/controlled/managed, and (3) produce products/services that are essential, and (4) political power is neither centralized, nor concentrated.

A side note: Former Libyan President, Muamar Gadddafi, who was ousted & assassinated by the West, had a brilliant idea of keeping money from destroying his nation while remaining as socialist as possible. He allowed people to have businesses, but with the stipulation that only family members can be hired. This prevented abuse of workers, abuse of resources, and excessive waste. It ensured equitable distribution/benefits from revenue to its workers. Its self-limiting makeup prevented any business from becoming a threat to the nation, its resources, and its people. And, there was never an issue of "failure/success", as business revenue was never essential for the workers' survival & well-being. Gaddafi's Libya had no homelessness, all had free education & health, and all received numerous other benefits from its oil revenue that not even the European nations offer its people. Iran's former Prime Minister, Mohammad Mosaddegh, also nationalized his nation's oil for the benefit of its people. He was also ousted by the CIA/West.

Reasons why money & socialism don't mix:

(1) Money produces nothing but wealth/profit, and wealth/profit is not a requirement for the survival and social harmony & advancement of any group/society.
This is why pre-colonial indigenous cultures never needed a currency. They thrived, as they were not enslaved to a monetary system.

(2) Money causes a shift in how labor is incentivized.
Rather than working for the mutual benefit of the group (which ultimately benefits the individual), the incentive to work is shifted towards the acquisition of money. And if money becomes the central motive, then nothing else matters...including the nature & consequences of one's work. The results are disastrous...the likes of which are evident all over the world & throughout history. (Also note the disastrous impact on indigenous peoples after being forced into the cities & job market.)

(3) Money has no stand-alone value.
When someone works and receives money for it, the money has no use unless it's spent. But if the worker doesn't spend the money, the bills don't get paid, and pile up (with late fees!). And so they're forced to spend it, which forces them to continue working for more to pay future bills. By contrast, in a money-less system, the fruits of labor cannot be replaced by a worthless currency, but is kept by workers to do as they wish. Workers are not forced to continue working to pay bills, to follow a work schedule, or meet quotas to ensure business competitiveness & job security. Instead, workers are participants in a cooperative effort so that all may benefit. Thus, in a money-less system, everyone works for one another rather than for money. Essentially it means each person has literally millions/billions of others working for them. It's what I like to call the "pot luck" system, where each person brings a single item to a party which ends up being a smörgåsbord for the entire group.

Hence, a commonality in all money systems is that the spirit of cooperation & fruitful, satisfying labor has been replaced by fear-based competition & forced, meaningless toil.

(4) Money creates tons of non-essential work (ie, useless, fruitless, non-productive labor).
As a result of the increasing number of non-productive jobs (primarily administrative), the burden of supporting the needs of the entire population falls increasingly on fewer productive workers. This also leads to longer work hours, physical/psychological stress to workers, lost time with families/friends, less time for R&R & creative passions, a severely unskilled population, a brain-drain, sloth (money fuels work dissatisfaction), a need to escape (leading to excessive consumerism/shopping, substance abuse, entertainment, eating disorders, criminal pursuits), chronic fear (fear of losing money generates obsession with money), increasing crime & violence, massive inefficiency, and massive wastefulness & environmental destruction.

(5) Money alters our sense of place in nature.
By introducing complexity, constant toil, unending competition, social & economic instability, wastefulness & environmental destruction, and stress & boredom, money robs us of the true simplicity & beauty of life is. Rather than viewing & treating Earth as a garden paradise, Earth is picked apart for its monetary potential. Any stretch of land observed with the eyes of a capitalist is seen for its profit potential. Where a forest stands, apartment complexes could stand. Where a beach stands, high-rise luxury hotels could stand. Where a prairie stands, a vast cattle ranch could stand. Where green rolling hills stand, a vast array of oil fields could stand. And so on. It's like the song that goes, "They paved paradise, put up a parking lot."

(6) Money promotes parasitic behavior.
As capitalism is a parasitic system, so does it breed a collective parasitic mentality. The resulting parasitic behavior in people leads to crimes of domination, which can then spawn crimes of despair. Crime is thus a persistent & growing concern & burden in capitalist societies. Blue collar crime gets most of the media exposure, but it's white collar crime that causes the greatest damage & poses the greatest threat. One could even say that white collar crime promotes blue collar crime. This then prejudices the white collar sector into viewing the blue collar sector as having criminal tendencies.

I love the following scene from the 1935 movie, Mutiny on the Bounty, where Midshipman, Roger Byam, explains "money" to King/Chief Hitihiti of Tahiti. The scene illustrates so succinctly, brilliantly, and eloquently the ridiculousness (and insanity) of money.

I discovered this video the other day. This is what Prof. David Graeber (deceased) had to say about what money does to us.
All Economies are Ultimately Human Economies