Socialism and Mutual Obligation

More important than not being a burden on one another is not being a burden to the planet's resources & ecosystems. The planet doesn't care what we do to each other. If we go extinct, so be it. Humans have been at war with each other for thousands of years. Yet, through all that unnecessary drama, the ecosystems remained pristine & population levels remained stable. But when humanity began to advance its technologies to a level that became toxic, and coupled that with runaway population growth, then the entire biosphere came under threat. As such, the planet will react aggressively, which is what we're seeing today.

If a social group can no longer sustain itself in a region as a result of habitat abuse, then the only option is to spread to another area. If, as it is today, that humans have become a burden to the entire biosphere of the planet, then there is virtually nowhere for anyone to escape.

In reference to "planned economies", what you're talking about is State capitalism, not a true socialist system. The American & Soviet systems are basically two sides of the same coin.

In the late Soviet style State capitalism, the State robbed its people of the fruits of labor DIRECTLY by taking it. So-called "communist/socialist" nations are always in name only, never in practice. Just as in its national title ("USSR"), various nuances were implemented into the economic system to create the appearance of a "collectively" dictated system. But it was nothing of the sort, as is evident by the outcome. Like in the U.S., (1) money was in use, (2) power was concentrated & centralized (the King was replaced by a brutal "party"), and (3) workers were always in conflict with the establishment concerning domestic socio-economic policies & personal liberty. A revolution, wars (including a civil war), internal strife, and excessive focus on industrialization & weaponization didn't help matters either. The former Soviet State was neither a democratic, nor socialist/communist nation.

In American style State capitalism, the State robs its people of the fruits of labor INDIRECTLY by robbing them of the means (money) to acquire it. The State takes public money and transfers most of it into private hands. "Free market" nations are in name only, not in practice. And this is a blessing because a free market system would quickly self-destruct if not for the limits imposed upon it by programs designed to protect/support people & natural resources. Thus, in practice, the goal behind wealth centralization & concentration is dependent on public largesse, not on real free market enterprise. No capitalist (wealth-building) economy can sustain itself, or even begin, without the support of massive, ongoing taxpayers funds. The reason is simple. Capitalism is parasitic. Essentially, capitalism centralizes wealth by hijacking the fruits of labor.

The Soviets (and later the Chinese & others) realized they couldn't compete with the American method of robbing its citizens. They were impressed with the way America's State elites could enrich themselves by incrementally undermining the working class, yet still remain in power with relative domestic stability because of a much slower deterioration of the economy. And so, the Soviet block style of capitalism was allowed to fall to make way for the Western version. And President Reagan was there to "usher" it in, which was likely the result of a special under-the-table deal between East & West elites as part of a globalist agenda. Russia has since learned to make improvements on this by tweaking a few things (including welcoming foreign industries & investments). And China has learned to expand to foreign horizons to maintain its strength & capital.

You could say that (late) Soviet style State capitalism is a quick death, while western style State capitalism is a slow death.

 

Why would a store of wealth need to be built into a socialist system if cooperation is the very economy of the system? In a money-less system, labor is incentivized by mutual benefit, so there's never a shortage of it. And thus, never a need for money/wealth...no matter what happens.

What do you think indigenous cultures did in times of scarcity? Why do you think they lasted 100,000 years? Did a store of "wealth" save them during hard times?

If one doesn't understand the essence of true socialism, then none of that matters. Erroneous thinking & beliefs will yield erroneous behavior, no matter how much self responsibility one accepts. What matters most is to first understand, and then to accept that the essence of what constitutes true socialism is cooperation for the sake of mutual benefit.

Do you & Crank honestly believe that communes/collectives are the solution? Do you believe that small communes/collectives are the way most socialist-minded people would prefer to live as a means to removing the cancer called capitalism?

Then why do you & Crank criticize social welfare recipients (whom you don't know the life stories of), as if they were part of the problem (rather than a symptom), but never the billionaires & corporations for receiving trillions in handouts & benefits? Is this not a double standard?

And again, unless you completely give up money & break your connection to capitalist society, you ain't "off-grid", you ain't "self-sufficient", and you ain't living like a "socialist." It's that simple.

 

Pointing out the errors in logic & simplistic arguments of both socialists & capitalists (and other "-ists") is my position. I'm not playing any blame game.

I hate to disappoint you, but you're still supporting the very system you hate. You believe you're making a difference by joining a collective, but your collective still relies on money and the goods/services & conveniences of a capitalist system. (And all these conveniences, including the internet, that you rely on was made possible by fossil fuels, which makes the collective ON-grid.) Even a homeless person living on the street is surviving off the products of the system, only without money.

The only way one can claim to be completely off-grid & self-sufficient is if one (or one's group) lives completely off the land, cut off from all money/products/conveniences of modern capitalist societies. The only people doing this are the few remaining, uncontaminated indigenous groups.

With that said...it should be understood that one can do much on an individual level without having to join a commune/collective and pretend being "socialist." What we buy & where we spend our money, being frugal, living simply, how much & what kind of food we eat, how much & what kind of energy we use, learning to DIY as many products/services as we can, growing whatever we can/find room for, planting trees, how we get around, ensuring our own health & being open to alternative therapies/products, educating ourselves in a wide variety of subjects, how we behave towards others, helping others in various ways, and teaching the young about the virtues of thinking independently & acting responsibly all matter in how much of a burden we are to both planet & people.

Imagine if every person did this.

But are you not still supporting the very system you wish to escape? Do you not rely on money? Are you not a consumer like everyone else? How are you making money & purchasing products?

Judging by the fact that you're using the internet, I wonder just how "off-grid" you really are. Have you rejected the use of the products of modern civilization that required fossil fuels to build, including solar panels, wind turbines, tools, appliances, and high-tech equipment? Have you rejected all modern forms of transportation & communication? Are you manufacturing all your own clothing, furniture, and building supplies directly from raw, locally acquired resources, and using only self-made tools from local resources? In terms of food, are you completely self-sufficient? In terms of water, have you rejected the use of modern water purification devices? And what will you do if the water runs dry (due to climate change/drought, big Ag, etc.)? If you're severely injured or become ill will you refuse to head to the nearest medical clinic? Have you completely rejected the use of money (including credit cards, banks/savings accounts, pensions, government benefits, etc.)?

If you answered NO to any of these questions then you're neither off-grid, nor self-sufficient. You've merely found a way to save yourself some money by exploiting modern products, innovations, and infrastructure...but who lives comfortably knowing you're never far from the support, comfort, care, protection, and modern conveniences of society.

Thank you. You described perfectly the corporations & billionaires that receive $trillions of dollars in aid & benefits each year at the expense of taxpayers (ie, labor)...and simply end up pocketing it. Yes indeed, such largesse does corrupt the wealthy individual even more than they already were. Who would've thought?!

Have you considered that perhaps there would be little to no "social welfare" needed in the first place if tax revenue actually went to where it counts? Imagine if we provided free education and free (quality) healthcare (which bankrupts hundreds of thousands of people annually). Imagine if we included other freebies, such as free public transportation (city & nationwide), free communications & internet, and free utilities (like Gaddafi did), cheap (but quality) housing, maternity leave, and reduced work hours, among other things. Imagine how empowered, not corrupted, people would be. When a person is free of the stress of money, bills, illness, and acquisition of food & shelter, they can be healthy in mind & body, and ready to seek out their greatest potential. And that greatest potential multiplied millions or billions of times would advance civilization to the stars in no time.

Some fun facts for you regarding welfare:

Are welfare recipients just lazy oafs?

Do all poor people qualify for welfare?

Your tax dollars hard at work being used to keep wages low by subsidizing large corporations.

 

Rather than repeat myself, you can look at my reply to 557 (above) who said the same thing as you.

But I must ask:

(a) Are you speaking of a completely self-sufficient & off-grid commune, that has no need whatsoever of modern tools & conveniences, and uses NO money? If so, then such a society can only exist as long as said society can be kept perfectly isolated from the effects of modern capitalist civilization (ie, immune from the effects of pollution, EMF, industrial toxins, pesticides, GMO's, resource abuse, and so on). Unfortunately, such isolation from the effects of modern industrial civilization is virtually no longer possible.

For example, suppose your commune is living happily in a rural area. What will you do if you get cancer (or other acute illness) because a factory keeps dumping poisons into a waterway that you depend on? What do native Americans do about their persistent exposure to uranium from corporate mining operations? What if you're injured & require hospitalization? What do you do if your ground water dries up because big Ag is sucking it up to feed their almond orchards (now more critical due to climate change/droughts)? What do you do if growing cities encroach on your land, bringing pollution, crime, drugs, noise, and congestion? How do you keep your organic garden from being contaminated by Roundup/other pesticides or corn & soybean GMO's? What do you do if you become too ill to function because cell & radio towers are causing the deterioration of your health, and there's really no other place to escape the EMF/EMR? What do you do if you find the perfect piece of land, but find out you're trespassing & are forced to leave because some billionaire has just bought up hundreds of thousands of arable land? What if you're forced to leave your land because the military has decided to confiscate it in the name of "national security"? The list goes on.

(b) Or are you speaking of a community that calls itself "off-grid" & "self-sufficient"...yet uses money and relies on the products, services, and infrastructure of modern society?

A major issue with communes/collectives is their continued reliance on money & the goods/services of a capitalist society, which then prevents them from fulfilling their ultimate dream of completely escaping the capitalist system. This issue, I believe, also discourages many potential recruits (or causes them to leave), which is why their member numbers are always low.

If you don't mind using money, then don't pretend that a commune/collective is a socialist system. It is not. It's a way to save a few bucks (and also a place for the dispossessed/down-and-out to escape to).

If you and/or your collective relies on money, then I can understand you wanting to defend its use.

But if your collective has nothing to do with money, then I guarantee it's not self-sufficient? Or are you saying money is not a factor in your collective?

Hence the very reason why money is unnecessary, counterproductive, and should be eliminated.

 

Small voluntary collectives is EXACTLY what we're discussing here. The degree of self-sufficiency of each is entirely irrelevant - what determines 'collectivism', is the shared resources and shared labour for the securing of lifetime access to the materials of survival.

When you say that's not what most people are looking for when they seek 'socialism', you're absolutely right. They're merely looking for a free lunch, and socialism/collectivism is the very last place you're going to find free lunches.

 

My collective is mostly off grid (power, water, food), but that's about something else other than collectivism. We don't like being reliant on jobs/money to keep us fed and housed. We simply feel more secure knowing we can live for many years without an income, if it comes to that.

The point of collectivism is mutual obligation and responsibility, the sharing of resources (ie property), and the sharing of labour to maintain those resources. It's a way of ensuring that no one falls through the net via OUR actions, rather than their own.

 

In my experience, those who say "Unless collectivism is done according to my Star-Trekesque fantasies of a money free society in which I get to write poetry while the Govt feeds and houses me, I ain't doing it", is a very convenient excuse for doing nothing.

Every person who pursues collectivism, rather than the 'every man for himself' individualism preferred by the Welfare State, is advancing the human condition. Those who do nothing, are advancing the individualism of the capitalist elites - who want us dependent on them.

 

That's probably because the whole idea is bullshit. No such "circle of trust" would be needed in a socialist economy any more than it is in a capitalist economy. The rule in BOTH is "from each according to his ability; to each according to his work". And tax revenue would provide for the infirm and needy.

 

Let’s hear your definition of true socialism.

I don’t live in a commune nor are communes a prerequisite of a socialist lifestyle.

Money is a distraction. A socialist society can exist with paper money, digital currency, sea shells or measures of grain. In fact, the concept of “money” will survive any attempt at getting rid of “money”. Money is one of the distractions wanna be socialists use to make excuses for not living a socialist lifestyle themselves. It’s an unattainable scenario that can be trotted out as and excuse to not live a socialist lifestyle because what does exist isn’t “pure” enough to bother with.

LOL. You say socialism doesn’t involve money. The “socialism” you subscribe to doesn’t only eschew money, but barter and trade as well. Yet you just claimed indigenous peoples were fully socialist and had trade routes! If you have a trade route you have “money” and more obviously trade.

Yes most westerns are still living under feudalism.

Nobody loves or uses money more efficiently than the Amish. You won’t find a more capitalist bunch than the Amish. They are particularly shrewd capitalists.

My socialist behavior isn’t a threat to the state either and I’m not exclusive. I welcome more active participants.

 

No, that's just a hippy commune.

 

Socialism is a socio-economic system in which the working class (if you know what that is) owns and runs the businesses ("means of production") democratically and the state performs a supporting role. There are more details but that is the 10-second definition.

Correct.

No, it's worse than that although that is pure bullshit. The "excuse" for not living a socialist lifestyle is that doing so requires an entire society so that the government can act in the necessary supportive capacity to facilitate socialism. And to work it must also happen in a technologically-advanced and productive society.

 

No. Nothing is required of many no matter their ability in today’s populist “socialism”. And it can only function inside of capitalism because only capitalism can supply enough resources to care for freeloaders.

Widespread socialism is virtually impossible because few want it. Most want to benefit from the surplus from capitalism. Socialism absolutely requires trust and personal responsibility. Since neither are intrinsic in human nature coercion will always be necessary, defeating the original purpose of socialism.

The only way an individual will ever experience or live socialism is if they choose to on their own. A socialist society will never evolve, nor will a successful model exist under central planning.

 

I provided the definition of socialism in this thread. You speak of "today's populist socialism" but where do you find a nation that fits the definition?

So your approach here is "no it isn't! / yes it is! / no it isn't! / yes it is! / no it isn't! / yes it is! / no it isn't! / yes it is! ...."

 

How appropriate for the season.

Go ask the Pilgrims how it worked out for them.

We as a society and as beings do best the more we are able to act in our own self interest. The more we have done that the more advanced has humanity and society become.

 

I agree except for the government (state) part. If the state is involved in making decisions it isn’t socialism by definition because the workers aren’t in control. Government involvement in socialism is an oxymoron. If you mean “support” as in stay the hell out of the way, OK. But anything more is an oxymoron.

Better inform JCS.

Government facilitating socialism is impossible. If government is facilitating, the workers are not in control of business. Government facilitated “socialism” is just more feudalism under a different banner. When any class is making decisions for another it’s no longer socialism.

 

Socialism you propose can not, has not, and never will exist. Any socialism in a western nation is populist.

If I had said that you would be able to use the quote function. I’m making intellectual arguments. You call everything BS.

 

Yes and no. Socialism is "the dictatorship of the proletariat" over the capitalist class. So the class struggle must be managed by enforcement of laws and it takes a state machinery to do that. Beyond that, the state would keep records, communicate regional statistics and needs, advise sources of excess and surplus where those resources and products are needed so they can be distributed beneficially, and support the economic needs generally, but without ownership of the MoP.

No, by "facilitating" I mean record-keeping and publishing statistics as an advisory service.

No socialist country exists. The working class does not control the MoP anywhere that I know of.... yet. Some ave tried to "get to socialism" but in most every case the strategies failed.

 

Of course it's necessary to have that trust. We can't function in a mutually interdependent way without it. And ALL collectivism is mutual interdependence. If you want a nation sized collective you can only have it via totalitarianism, because there cannot be trust at that scale.

Meantime, 'socialist economy' means Common Purse. Common purse is NOT Govt paying for stuff on your behalf.

 

It doesn't matter what it is. Could be a hippy commune, a large extended family, an agricultural cooperative, a religious group, a small business, or just a shared farm. The specific flavour of the collective is entirely irrelevant.

 

LOL ... the age old excuse to keep living a capitalist-individualist lifestyle.

"I won't do it unless it's exactly like my Star Trek fantasy". IOW, never. There will never be a worker-owned utopia, because the PEOPLE don't want it. You will have to force it on them .. and if you do that you're breaking the Star Fleet Prime Directive.

 

Very well put!

Couldn't agree more.

 

Because We The People ... DO NOT WANT IT. We simply don't want to own the MoP. You will never get the masses to pony up for their obligations in those worker-owned factories, without a gun to their heads. Now where's your utopia?

 

Class struggle is a construct those who wish to govern use to manipulate people. I live a more socialist lifestyle than populist socialists or theoretical socialists will ever experience. There was no struggle.

I know a lot of people who have the intelligence and ability to own and control means of production yet choose not to. Because they don’t want the responsibility that comes with ownership and control.

These people will always DEMAND a capitalist funded redistribution system or submit to a planned economy. Both require government intervention you propose. The only socialism that will ever exist will coexist with one of these government controlled systems of distribution. Anything else is an unrealistic dream. Besides, no government has ever been benevolent enough to “fairly” advise, distribute, or keep statistics.

But above you advocate for state machinery of laws and distribution of resources. How does a government know what each individual ability and “need” is anyway?

That’s right. As @crank correctly states, there never will be because only a very few WANT any real socialism. Most want capitalism funded redistribution not based on merit or want complete control of their lives (economic and otherwise) by a government.

 

Exactly. And this is how we know they're phonies.

 

After over 50 years of interest in socialism, I say you're completely wrong. But we all know there is no convincing you.