Socialism and Mutual Obligation

In another thread, I was asked to provide an example of what is understood in Collectives/Communities as the breaking of the 'circle of trust'. The circle of trust being the mechanism by which sustainability and complete coverage is attained. I responded with the following:

To use a small agrarian community as an example (though it applies to any sized community - even a nation), it would be when member/s do not meet their obligation to be secure and stable, and thus able to provide support to other members in their moments of need. A circle of trust can only exist when each person in it meets their minimum obligation to be a provider of support. When a member receives but does not provide, they have broken trust, and the strength of the circle is compromised.

Another poster suggested creating a thread on this topic specifically, so here it is. Open for debate and discussion. Throw your two cents in, for or against - or add your own expansion!

 

How do you build children, the elderly, and the infirm into this model?

 

Good question, and one I was hoping would be asked!

The model allows for only enough 'surplus' to support those who cannot be providers (IOW, the young, the old, the disabled). Once you attempt to provide for those who merely choose not to provide, the equilibrium is lost. It might take generations for the imbalance to collapse the system, but it WILL collapse.

Keep in mind that breaking trust is very new, having only existed at the imbalance level for perhaps a generation.

 

I might not be understanding this topic correctly. At first blush I thought it was about trust levels in society at large enabling for large scale commerce outside one's kinship group. But I think what you are saying it's trust that everyone is doing their best to provide for the community as a whole? Just want to make sure I've framed the topic correctly.

 

You got it. The whole thing (whether a small collective, or a nation sized society) hinges upon 'each' member meeting their obligations. While it might only take one rogue member to collapse a collective of ten, the same effect is felt in a larger group when a certain percentage goes rogue. There's a critical mass point, and we've already passed it.

Further, our willingness to support our fellows is predicated upon our trust that those we support are meeting their obligation to support us in turn - should we ever need it. That's what produces the willingness - the trust. It's basic mammalian survival stuff. Remove that trust, and you have a much less 'kind' society. When we introduce bypasses like indiscriminate welfare, we break down that trust by enabling people to avoid their social obligations.

 

I've heard that argument expressed a little differently to explain why European social welfare programs are much more expansive than those in the United States. European social welfare programs were created when those nations were much more united in ethnicity, and it was less controversial to "help your own." Meanwhile in the US, it was viewed as "helping those other people." In the US in the mid 20th century, more liberal welfare programs tracked with states that were less diverse, particularly the Scandinavian belt.

 

I’m sure @crank will agree because I’ve seen her post similar content. All three of the demographics you present can and should contribute to the collective in some way. Children are a labor resource. The elderly are a knowledge and wisdom resource. Many infirm can be an intellectual resource if the infirmity is physical and be a physical labor resource if the infirmity is intellectual. Within reason of course. I’m not saying the mentally infirm should be exploited physically! But the idea a person that isn’t fully mature or 100% physically or mentally “able” should be a freeloader is absurd. Only a VERY small percentage of people need to be fully carried by society.

 

1) 100% bang on. Those programs were the great success they were, because the trust was intact. Every person knew their fellows were keeping their end of the bargain. Once they started tolerating trust breakers (in the fatuous and infantile belief that it was a kindness), the system broke down. Now everyone loses.

2) A fatal error, common to those who think their own safety is eternally assured. Help should never mean sacrificing the 'dwelling' which provides the helping strength in the first place. It benefits no one to throw the doors open and say 'help yourself'. All it does is guarantee that your ability to help will be gradually destroyed. The best way to keep helping 'others' is to provide them with resources, to do with as they see fit - on their own soil. There are a few extenuating circumstances where refugees should be given asylum if they want it, but genuine refugees are usually not on the make, so it's a reasonable thing to do. Regular legal migration doesn't break the trust circle, because the people involved have already proven themselves willing and able to meet social obligations. They may break the cycle in other ways, however - ie, refusal to assimilate.

Every time someone breaks trust, our nations suffer. Whether it's citizens refusing to meet social obligations, or migrants refusing to learn the language - all of it weakens us.

 

Yes, agree! Children 'earn their keep' by applying themselves to the learning of skills they'll need to meet their social obligations later. Elderly people earn their keep by providing guidance, emotional support, child minding, passive technical skills, etc etc. The disabled can be as productive as anyone else, with adaptation.

When I talk about preserving surplus for the young/old/disabled, it's more about allowing for the much smaller periods of our lives when we truly cannot contribute much. As you say, this is the very small percentage who need to be fully carried.

 

Meantime, and somewhat returning to the thread Title ....

These fundamentals of collectivism, are the very obligations most disliked by the Woke Marxist types who actually call themselves socialists.

 

I’m shocked at the lack of interest by the “progressives/democratic socialists” in a thread on actual socialism. LOL. SHOCKED!

 

I'm not. It's standard fare.

Case in point ... I was recently talking to a 30-something who has several socialism-related tattoos, is a member of an allegedly hardcore socialist group, is a declared Marxist, and participates in lots of protests. Anyway, he knows my own background (hard@ssed commie) and wanted to discuss collectivism - but as soon as I mentioned the foundation premise 'work to eat/mutual obligation' he shut down.

Keep in mind this is someone who's basically built their life and identity on the premise that he's a collectivist. You can't make this stuff up!

 

Well no modern collectivist envisions themselves working in the hot sun in agriculture or construction, they think they'll be teaching socialist dance or the dialectic in the air conditioning. And that's a result of collectivism being primarily a movement of privileged elites rather than the working class.

 

Indeed!

It's a result also, of a sector which is technically seeking the polar opposite of collectivism. What they're after is something more akin to the medieval status quo - wherein serfs labour to support the special people engaged in loftier pursuits. Or in no pursuits at all.

 

Regarding the "collective of ten", whether a "rogue" can cause a social collapse depends on several factors (and I'm assuming you're talking about a group that does NOT use money):

The degree of autonomy & control each member has per consensus, how governance is structured (hierarchy or democratic), cultural beliefs & traditions, whether the collective is nomadic or stationary, the degree of abundance/scarcity of wild resources, location & climate, and individual accessibility to the fruits of the collective labor. There are other factors that could be taken into account, but I believe these are the most important.

With larger groups, are you speaking of ones with or without a monetary system? This is important because any time money is introduced into any system/group, there is a concurrent introduction of an unnecessary & dangerous threat to the well-being of the group and its members.

The issue is not "critical mass point", but rather how much power/control (if any) is handed over to "rogue" members. In our capitalist/monetary-based world, it takes only a single wealthy person to threaten the well-being of every member of society (and even the world). Obviously, this is because the more money you have, the more influence you have, the more money you can accumulate, the more influence you will have.....you get the idea. Ultimately, wealth offers the wealthy the ability to hoard & control essential resources, which they can then use to control people & labor.

Greedy, power-hungry people need not be a problem because they are essentially a minority in societies...and in an ideal society, such people would simply be ignored. The danger arises when the majority willingly hands their power over to this minority so that the latter has control over the lives of others & the essential resources that all depend on. And it's been going on in this manner for millenia, and is the reason why nothing ever changes. But it's an even bigger threat today because of advances in technology, over-population, and scarcity of free land & resources for those who wish to escape and live free & completely unmolested by civilization.

"Indiscriminate welfare" for whom? The poor who need it, or the rich who don't?

Have you not heard of "corporate welfare" (under the guise of "economic development") which eats up most of the nation's fiscal revenue in the form of grants, startup capital, tax cuts, loopholes, kickbacks, lobbying (indirect), subsidies, and bailouts? Talk about "break down of trust" (not that corporations or the wealthy could ever be trusted in the first place).

Just a single industry alone-----the fossil fuel industry-----receives over $5 trillion annually in subsidies. Do you know how much Walmart receives? Or how about Boeing? How about the banking sector? How about the insurance companies? How about the medical & pharmaceutical industries? How about all the R&D funding footed by taxpayers that private companies end up stealing & profiting from (while raising the price many fold)? How about Microsoft? How about Musk/Tesla? How about Bezos/Amazon (his subsidies alone tally at over $4 billion)? How about Facebook/Zuckerberg? How about Michael Dell? How about Google? How about so-called "aid" to foreign nations, like Israel? How about the trillions that are spent on arms purchases, on maintaining/operating the hundreds of military bases around the world, operating aircraft carriers, and at fighting open & covert wars? How about the money wasted by Big Brother on surveillance of its own citizens? The list is endless.

If it were not for the trillions in annual corporate welfare handouts & benefits (at taxpayer expense), we probably wouldn't even know about Musk, Bezos, Zuckerberg, Gates, et. al. These people are not entrepreneurs, but rather welfare whores. And still, no amount of money given freely to the wealthy & the corporations has ever improved life in America, but has done the opposite.

Yet, when confronted about the need to expand social programs, the capitalist mind always replies with, "But who will pay for it all?"...and..."Oh, so you think we should pay more taxes!?"...and..."Why should the government punish someone for being successful / rich."

Here are a couple eye-opening, but fun, short videos to give one a broader perspective:

"Elon Musk Sucks!!!!!!!!"

"Why America Sucks at Everything"

 

Sounds like some kind of borg collective -- right out of 1984 .. Lets rush out and set up the "Ministry of Trust" --- violators will not be tolerated

 

Kind of hard to do in a capitalist system unless adequate measures are in place to ensure that every member can be fit enough to be productive.

What does this entail? It entails that, if there exists a monetary system & that some people end up becoming "rich", then these people should be kept on a very short leash so that they don't end up destroying the very habitat & abundance of resources that all people depend on for their very health & well-being.

It should be understood that the monetary system & wealth/profit are entirely unnecessary and also dangerous elements in any group, large or small, because such elements serve no useful purpose or benefit to the group. In fact, money/wealth/profit represents the very antithesis to why humans form into groups in the first place...whether it be a family or a nation. The group is not designed to benefit only one person or a small segment of the population more than the others...but to benefit all. Cooperation, in place of money, can yield far greater benefits, abundance, and rapid technological advancement if both ideas & resources are shared...and all without harm to our global habitat.

Alas, in a world of money, it is the few extremely shrewd members of society who are beset by uncontrollable greed that will seek to exploit the monetary system as a means to dominate others. And it is these very people that capitalists worship and wish to emulate. Capitalists are romanticists who don't appreciate where their goods & services come from. They only see what money can buy...rarely the damage that it does to all life.

 

The smaller the community, such as a Kibbutz, the more critical the point is. For a community the size of a nation, it's not that simple, which is to say, it is simplistic.

 

In my opinion, that's because socialists in democratic countries are too busy building a support base among those they see as potential allies against democracies to care about the finer points. The "equity-diversity-social-justice" carrot, spiced with charity, is their weapon of choice. From this point of view, the communities targeted by socialists are likely to become a custom-made circle of trust able to boost socialists' power and influence.

The inner workings of a socialist society are very different. I'm sure many of those angry socialists bleating about justice and human rights would be shocked, disappointed, and totally unprepared to deal with the realities of a socialist system - maybe even persecuted by their own leaders as dangerously idealistic. Socialist societies are inherently opposed to equity, diversity, and individual human rights, as those concepts threaten the absolute power of the government. People are effectively chained to a national circle of trust, because every aspect of life is strictly controlled by the state.

Besides, cognitive dissonance is a staple of totalitarian utopian ideologies.

 

Its actually really easy to tell a true communist/collectivist from an authoritarian control freak pretending to be a communist/collectivist... one of them will be wearing work clothes and have callouses on their hands.

 

The false dichotomy created to define and compare/contrast capitalism and socialism is the problem. It is very easy to live a socialist lifestyle—you just choose to do so and do it. There’s nobody stopping you. Nobody’s wealth is stopping you. Nobody’s ideas on capitalism or greed are stopping you.

Wealth, money and profit are not antithetical to a socialist lifestyle. As @crank correctly stated the object is to not be a burden to others. That is accomplished in two ways. One by having time/labor value to society, the other by having a stored surplus of resources. Stored resources are necessary to avoid becoming a liability in lean times. This is one main reason planned economies playing at socialism fail. The inefficiency of the system leads to scarcity that can’t be survived when outside forces affect productivity or access to resources. There must be a store of wealth built into any successful socialist construct.

The only obstacle to socialism is an unwillingness to accept responsibility for one’s self. That’s the point of Crank’s thread. Money, wealth, corporatism are all distractions people cling to as something to blame—an excuse to not take responsibility and go live as a socialist should.

 

Couldn't have answered that post better! Thank you for your input - it's much appreciated, and captures my own thoughts perfectly.

 

Your entire premise is predicated on the idea that everything is external to you. When we tell ourselves that all of the bad stuff is 'over there', it permits us to do nothing but continue to support the very system we say we hate.

There isn't a thing in the world stopping you from engaging in collectivism, here and now. Anyone can do it. In fact the more of us who do it, the less we'll rely on the corrupt systems designed to disempower the common man.

Finally, indiscriminate welfare deliberately avoids policing for need. The upshot of non-essential largess is a corruption of the individual in receipt of it. That's the malicious point of the exercise.