What does socialism mean to you?

In order for it to be a society, there must be some kind of common beliefs rules, and even laws.

 

A state is made up of people living within an area, and has certain rules/laws for living within that area that are intended to maintain social order. Those rules/laws arise from a set of beliefs common to the society that creates them. The state and the society have their differences, but for what we're discussing, they are essentially the same.

 

Then it would be forbidden.

 

Ah, good logic. And if we turned the idea around, The state could not exist except as part of a society.
As I said, there are some differences, but for what we're discussing, they aren't part of it.

 

Yes, they are different, but I wasn't conflating them intentionally. As a society grows into a state, rules must grow into laws. As far as a monopoly of violence by a state, we should consider that a system of vigilantism and revenge is not terribly different.

 

Now, out of the rabbit hole. I used the term society to point to the idea that in the broadest sense, all individuals must surrender a certain amount of their individuality (freedom) in order to live within a society. This conflict between the individualism and society is the root of the concept of socialism--one that doesn't have all the current political baggage.

The original intent was to show that socialism is not a singularity, but a wide range of concepts that at whatever level represent some challenge to individuality. Whether we use the state or social rules to limit that individuality isn't really important to any of that. And the reason for that is so there can be an intelligent discussion, not of 'should we have socialism or not', but of what degree of socialism are we willing to accept.

In that sense, the distinctions between society and state are not part of the issue.

So, after all that, was there a specific point I missed that you were making about the definitions?

 

Wait, wuuut? You went to college and you're not a leftyrobot? That really challenges all that stuff about mindless college students.

I think it's good to reject any lockstep acceptance of any professor or any book you may have read. When I went to college, there were a lot of us who challenged to professors about just flat-out accepting what they said. I have to say that there are times when I look at how those younger than me interpret the world I've lived through, I have to shake my head and wonder how much of the history of the world have I misinterpreted. I like to think we're not experts on any such topics, but have informed opinions.

In that sense, I understand that much of what we were told about Cuba, the Soviet Union, Venezuela, and so forth is propaganda. The actual history cannot come from one source or one side. And in that sense I also see that what happened in those countries does not match any definition of communism or socialism. What stands out is the blatant corruption of the leaders. I have to account for that, so when I look at today's arguments, I can't help but feel, at least in part, amused by the arguments.

Also, kudos to you for your time on the sub. My son also did time on a sub (a boomer). We got to tour the boat, and I felt a bit of claustrophobia. I don't know how you guys did it, but I'm glad you did.

 

That would only work if people agreed to the rules. I can't imagine people agreeing to pay fines or court settlements without the threat of physical force. I can imagine the free-market sale of justice to the highest bidder.