What, exactly, is socialism? Again this discussion seems necessary.

But not for forcibly stripping people of their rights and giving them to the privileged as their property.

You aren't one of the apex predators.

 

Give it time. When/if you tire of contributing to the problem from your armchair, you may want to share your resources with those less able. I'm your guy for negotiating that fairly challenging proposition. It's hard, but it's doable.

 

Human nature will always kick you in the teeth, Dear.

Your ideas are literally fantastical, in that they're premised on a nature we don't have. Never will have, never have had.

 

The trouble is that you believe in the integrity of the intertemporal choice model, deliberately using that to ignore how class immobility makes choice largely illusionary...

 

Yadda yadda (even still, I know the words are comforting to you, Reivs, so I make sure to read them each time), meantime ... people are falling through the cracks we leave in our resolve to collect and strengthen. While you're typing your salves, the problem continues on - unabated by the single but incredibly important data point of your action.

 

Just a little swipe at your devotion to right wing economics. Nothing more

 

Whatevs .. meantime, I'm doing actual socialism. What are you doing?

 

So the community would be my landlord whom I'd have to pay in order to exclusively use what nature has provided?

 

...b...b...but government is horrible and bad and has started unnecessary and unprovoked wars and ORANGE MAN BAD!!!!!

(except when they control all the land, have the monopoly of force and dole out our "rights" under the moniker "the land administration office")

Yep- makes perfect sense...

 

This made me laugh at least! First, you'd need ownership and control of the means of production. Then you'd have to somehow avoid corruption paradox. We'll add socialism to the ideas that you don't understand. Is that how you convinced yourself that you were left wing? Through the wonky erroneous?

 

Are you saying you literally believe that collecitivism only exists in a 'state' form? Oh my ... no wonder you keep saying silly things!

Until now, I'd assumed you were less naive and less limited by insular Western thinking, Reivs. Hence my frequent sarcasm.

 

I haven't referred to the state. I've referred to the definition of socialism. I then threw in a chuckle at the naivety of your argument. God bless

 

You appear to be talking about the state/politics. Neither of which have anything to do with collectivism, as actually lived and practiced.

 

Nope. I'll repeat myself: I've referred to the definition of socialism. That can of course refer to anarchism or post-Hayekian market socialism. Don't worry, I'll wait until you catch up.

 

I have not the tiniest doubt that you'll provide a definition which enables armchair philosophy, and that you'll ignore any which demand personal action.

None of this is new to my ears, Reivs. I've been listeneing to Faux Socialists pretend collectivism isn't going on all around them my entire adult life. So go ahead, if you need that final push to get you comfortably through another week of not-sharing. Hit me with your preferred excuser.

 

Sorry, The Mirror.

 

Get back to me when you have an argument. Your attempts at put-down are akin to a kitten clawing on your socks. Unfortunately for you I already have a new kitten in the house, so you don't serve any purpose. Cheers!

 

Gave up on that rag when they tried the anti-Corbyn guff and supported the PLP. Hard to find any decent print. Perhaps Tribune?

 

Every post in which I get to remind you I'm doing socialism daily while you do none - is enormous fun for me, Reivs. When I also get to remind you that I've voted hard left my entire voting life and was once a paid up member of the reds (when such existed), it's even more fun.

But go ahead, in your middle-class armchair, in your exclusive-use private home built by paid labourers, gobbling your purchased electricity, eating your purchased meal - go ahead and tell me again that I'm the bourgeoisie.

 

That you believe that is the crux of the problem. You have no understanding of socialism. See above!

 

Defining socialism is no more easier than defining capitalism. Both ideologies have had their core values modified or contaminated depending on your point of view. It seems to me that countries that tolerate the politics of both left and right and allows them to interface do better. When left or right go their separate ways it does not end so successful. .

 

The 'crux of the problem' is yours. When we are so wedded to our plush, private capitalist lifestyles, yet retain the vanity of needing to seem socialist, we embrace any definition which enables nil action.

Socialism is NOT political, it is economic/social. It is the non-surplus subsistence collective, acting in the pragmatic welfare interests of the many, rather than the personal idiosyncracies and comforts of the individual. Ultra conservative religious groups do it. Hippies do it. Off gridders to it. Agricultural co-ops do it (when resources and harvests are shared). Extended families of every race and persuasion do it. In fact, the only peoples who've thoroughly rejected the collective model are white, western, First Worlders. In my experience, the more wedded they are to their private comforts and enjoyments, the more they claim they're 'socialists'.

 

When there is a discussion about "tru-socialism" amongst socialist it reminds me of discussions I get into with my fellow anarchists/libertarians.

For example, I don't think that minarchism will work, and the existence of any government entity will mean force will be initiated against citizenry at some point.

I also get into similar discussions with anarcho-Communists as I think that government is required for their system to "work".

 

canada rates for prescriptions are much cheaper than in the US

allow people to order prescriptions overseas without a prescription and prices drop

corps know you have no where else to go because of the prescription laws

 

Defining socialism is a piece of pish! The hard bit is delivering a 'feasible form'. The Austrians thought they had in the pro-capitalist bag after Hayek's assault on socialist planning. We've since discovered that his analysis can be easily embedded within market socialism (where the socialist planner isn't required and worker ownership actually improves decision-making).

Not really. They aren't ideologies. They are economic paradigms. They either exist or they do not. The taint comes in the false application of political economic schools of thought. Free market economics, for example, was always a sham as government is the key economic agent in capitalism. Its needed to stabilise the system and avoid profit threatening crisis.