My definition of Socialism and why you do not need force to realize it
Socialism can mean a lot of different things to many people. People from the US have fundamentally different associations with the term I want to make a short excurse into English language.
-ists and -isms
The word “Islamist” for Islamic terrorist is by far the worst word creation I ever witnessed. We adopted the word into the German language (“Islam” means “Islam” and “Islamist” “Islamist” translated to German). And I remember asking a Muslim friend how it is to be an Islamist. From 'word creation logic' I just assumed Islamist refers to people who have Islam as their religion.
The same occurred recently with the word leftist. I said in some comment section “I am a leftist”, but people told me that “leftist” does not mean 'you are on the political left', but it refers to evil authoritarian left-wingers.
The same phenomenon occurs with the word Socialism. To me it means that you integrate social ideas into your political views, which even comes to what you would call civil rights. 'People should all be the same in front of the law' is one them that many socialists see undermined by expensive superstar lawyers, that can virtually win any case no matter the right or wrong.
However to some people – not only Americans to be fair – Socialism means either “what Marx wrote” or “What Russia and China did during the Cold War”.
You find the word social on many occasions, we even refer to the current German economic system as a social market economy. That term is debatable as well, but in my understanding every time something is done to help the weak it is social and whenever we talk about any political system it is a social system, because it regulates how people shall interact with each other in scoiety. A socialist system would merely acknowledge the later and try to protect the weak in my understanding.
My solution for this language problem would be the proposal that the we Germans get rid of our articles (der, die, das, etc) and you accept German as the new world language :). If German is good at one thing it is creating neologisms/new words. You all know the famous way-too-long German words like “Donauschifffahrtsgesellschaftskapitän”, the funny thing is though that every German knows what the word means without ever hearing it before. Kindergarten literally means garden for children, which is a pretty good metaphoric description for a place where young children are nurtured, don't you think?
Socialism without force
There is a certain degree of forcing people to abide the rules of the (social) system if you have a centralized form of socialism. The realization of such systems has often been rather class based with a political class that ruled the people. That is the reason why you often hear people say “The Sowjet Union was no real Socialism”. One of the core principles, even proclaimed by the east block, was the Klassenkampf or War of the classes, that is meant to get rid of a class-based society.
The Sowjet Union proclaiming they got rid of all classes is the same as America proclaiming the freedom they provide while they censor music into inaudibility.
My personal take on socialism is decentralized. I am not sure if this has ever been realized, but there has always been an anarchistic/libertarian wing of the socialist movement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_liberalism It is funny that I actually know almost nothing about it. But there are lines like
“The main objectives of the "left-liberal" parties—the German Progress Party and its successors—were free speech, freedom of assembly, representative government, equal and secret suffrage, free trade, and protection of private property; while they were strongly opposed to the creation of a welfare state, which they called "State Socialism". "
that I strongly agree with. Well except for the representative part maybe. I think we have the technology for a more direct democracy :).
I would want some very basic supply for the people like food, water, electricity, telecommunication and maybe public transport – I know working public transport is a foreign concept to Americans even though their history is associated with railroads... These are what I would like to call social contracts, every person has the right to sign up for additional contracts, like a health, retirement or research fonds, but those can be organized locally by the people themselves in the way they want and need those.
The basic contracts I mentioned should also be retractable. If the city of cologne or the person @dwinblood wants to become self-sufficient they should have every right to effectively create their own states, even if the population is just 1.
Law enforcement should only be done when people are harmed. I don't want the right of the strongest to prevail when it comes to conflict, that is pretty much the only time I think legislated force is necessary.
I hope this answers your question, Deva. The Anarcho-Capitalism you preach is not much different from my liberal Socialism. I just think you Anarchos (whenever I do this “you people” reference, it is meant a little sarcastic. I know you are an individual not the spokesman for all An-Caps ;) often neglect how free market also oppresses entrepreneurship through monopolies, patents, copyright and franchising. You say this is because big corp has the state to make laws for them, but I am a little sceptical about that. Although I am willing to try out if this problem resolves itself if people are given the right tools – a decentralized system. I have to thank you and Ron Paul for letting me steal this idea.
The left vs the right
There is a famous quote that is sometimes accredited to Hitler but most likely came from Gregor Strasser – a left-wing founding member of the National Socialist Party that was later assassinated.
“We are Socialists, we are enemies of today's capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions. “
source https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Nazism
This goes to show that there were “radical leftists” in the most “radical right wing” party ever. To me this sole example destroys any idea of a left/right dualism in politics. Thomas Payne would also be a famous example for a man with socialist ideas, like guaranteed income (UBI), who founded the perceived Mekka of Capitalism - the United States. To see the values of socialism and capitalism as inherently opposing forces is a very unhealthy mindset.
Maybe I should stop referring to myself as left-winged even tho I think left liberalism would be a good way to sum up my political views, but the very idea that our political reality has to be a compromise out of left-wing and right-wing ideas, that necessarily lead you to the center (aka establishment parties) is a narrative implemented by our all beloved shadow government, the deep state or however you want to call the people who actually control the world.
Picture sources in order of appearance:
http://keepthemiddleclassalive.com/how-socialists-built-america/
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-05-12/socialism-immoral-system
https://www.prageru.com/courses/left-and-right-differences
The distinction between 'collectivism' and 'individualism' works better for me. But also these two concepts have a lot of baggage.
Left vs right / capitalism vs socialism / conservatism vs progressiveness
I can see myself in any of these camps, depending on the meaning of the concept.
Having said that, this quote of yours made me laugh:
My solution for this language problem would be the proposal that the we Germans get rid of our articles (der, die, das, etc) and you accept German as the new world language
Exactly, context matters. A famous German thinker named Kant said that we have to live our lives according to principles, I always disagreed on that because every principle can be right or wrong if given context.
The one about the German language was meant to be a joke, but I am also sincere about it, if that makes sense.
I think how the term 'freedom' is defined in your hypothetical social system would benefit your post and clear up some lingering questions. It was touched on a bit in your dialogue with dwin, and perhaps you have discussed elsewhere outside of my purview?
When I speak with my European friends about various US issues, the term 'freedom' comes up frequently and I ask for it to be defined. Almost without fail, what I hear is along the lines of "Freedom is being able to do what you want to do." After pointing out how that can be abused, e.g. I really want to kick you in the balls (the example from your discussion! ;), it is automatically amended to "Freedom is being able to do what you want to do, as long as it doesn't hurt anybody else."
Then comes the issue of how 'hurt' is defined and how action or inaction can result in hurt and how the desire to prevent hurt will in practice tend to legitimize the imposition of force by an outside authority. Being subjected to force by an outside authority that someone may not agree with tends to suggest that this definition of 'freedom' is not what was intended. As of yet there has come no solution to that conundrum except, as suggested elsewhere in this thread, that people are educated from the very beginning in a different way so they are more considerate of others.
As a counter-proposition, I then suggest perhaps we could consider the following definition: "Freedom is the innate right to not have to do something an individual does not want to do." The subsequent discussion is frequently fruitful, but many tend to reject this definition because it entails you don't have to obey others or allow yourself to be imposed upon (taxed/kicked in the balls etc.) even though that external force is "well-intended". This is the tyranny of good intentions, which seems antithetical to what many wish to believe freedom is. (Note none of this touches on biological necessities like if you want to eat or not, which frequently get mixed up in the conversation). I have no conclusive answers to give here, but I am tapping forwards...
This suggests then that one of the few remaining options is voluntarism, and the statist mindset is very much opposed to voluntarism. Frequently this opposition wears the mask of concern for our fellow man, but often enough I have head the belief explicitly stated that that "people just aren't smart enough to act in an altruistic/self-beneficial manner". And perhaps they are correct at this time in history.
I would also point out as someone who has spent a lot of time in the German speaking realm, that left and right in the US and EU are understood very differently. As far as I have experienced, I have yet to meet a European who agrees that all taxation, except perhaps on goods, should be abolished. Europeans tend to view the state as a benevolent though somewhat bumbling big brother that they largely trust (I use b.b. intentionally here given the surveillance state), whereas the American experience has given rise to a somewhat less trusting stance towards the state.
As such, from a US perspective, even the conservatives in Europe are essentially on the left side of the political spectrum. Whether left or right, Europeans tend to agree with the forced extraction of wealth and wealth redistribution policies - and for good reason, it has treated them well since WWII. Whereas in the states ca. 50% of all tax money goes to feed the war machine and leaves precious little for the people after the bureaucracy takes its more than generous cut, in Europe most of the tax money actually goes into the social programs and (though admittedly much diminished because it has to feed the parasitic middleman of the bureaucratic state) back to the people. These very different experiences greatly influence how the political spectrum is viewed.
Another point entirely, getting rid of der/die/das in German entirely won't work because it is a case system, whereas English is a syntax system. I am not fond of German gendering articles, but removing them would create significant difficulties. We could however get rid of 'die' und 'der' and make everything 'das' however. That may also satisfy the current fad of gendering everything... hmmm... but then we would have 'das StudentIn' which is whack.
Very nice discussion.
I generally do not like to use the term "freedom" very much. It is one of the most overused misused and vague words that we have in our language. Sure the individualistic approach I want for socialism borrows a lot from people who write "freedom" on their flags.
Well, for the sake of communication, especially with our US-friends it might actually help if I provide some kind of defintion of freedom. I just think that I can only tell you what I associate with freedom, but that is actually very case dependent and hard to state in a logical way.
Freedom as a construct is maybe impossible to formulate in a logical way, so I just want to give people the tools to define their own freedom however they desire.
That feeling when you realize you talk to a fellow German - I think we all learned that definition in school :D
You actually provide a very nice angle explaining the difference between "left vs right" in the States and Europe. To me it has always been "Those Muricanos really don't understand what political left and right actually means", but I think your explanation is much more objective and less hostile than my reasoning on this topic :D.
Thank you very much for being part of the discussion!
The thing about Capitalism, Socialism, Communism, etc. We can take snapshots in history of any of those and say "See it is a good thing", or "see it is a bad thing". It depends upon our agendas.
For me the capitalism part of Anarcho-Capitalism is simply FREE MARKET.
The negatives people attack Capitalism for I've actually never seen occur in an actual free market environment though the cases of FREE MARKET seem to be short lived. The state ALWAYS steps in some how.
Those brief moments where there is an actual FREE MARKET tend to be great moments of entrepreneurship, innovation, etc.
Yet there is a thing called POWER. When you have a government innevitably there will be those that like to exercise power. They are much like muscle bound people that puff up and like to intimidate or thump their chest like an Alpha Gorilla.
The market is an easy target. Greed. If I can just control this. If I block X's access to Y will you and your employees back me in my bid for office?
This is called Cronyism. I see it combined with governance as the true evil.
In a voluntary society you couldn't force your employees to do anything. If you changed the terms of the contract they could consider it null and void and potentially point out that you broke the contract with them. They could work elsewhere, or perhaps with their skills start up a competing business. Aka entrepreneurship.
Dwinblood, I believe that a free market or anarchy is possible. I believe that anarchy is the spontaneous order of human beings to engage in something called "civilization". But I also believe that until people learn to be civil to each other, you cannot have a "civilization". It matters not which form of government you choose, be it a socialist, capitalist or anarchist form of state.
I've been thinking and writing about the cause of aggression in numerous articles I've written over the past year. As a result of research, reading and writing and thinking, I've come to this conclusion that aggression is due to the lack of skills to negotiate to get one's needs met without the use of force.
I'm generally in agreement with anarchists on this one. I have no personal need to control others. I've been through plenty of pain and aggravation trying that as a younger man. Then one day, I was reading the following statement, to paraphrase, "The slave owners in the Southern United States knew they were owned by the slaves just as much as they owned the slaves." The control was mutual and caused mutual suffering.
Now, anytime I see someone committing acts of violence, or using force to impose their will upon another person, I see that they lacked the skills to get along with others. I see that they lacked the skills required to get their needs met without the imposition of force upon another. People who exert force upon others, whether the form of force may be mere deception, fraud, collusion or outright violence, may be unable to name the need they are trying to meet. Why else would they need to use force, if they can't meet their own needs?
This aggressive behavior is called "challenging behavior" when children exhibit it. When adults do it, we call them thugs. Aggression is a learned behavior, in lieu of better skills for getting along with other people.
Without realizing it, I developed an inclination towards voluntarist society while observing how Alcoholics Anonymous works. Same is true of reading about how open source software is developed. I'm sure I can find a few other examples, but those two easily come to mind. Both are completely voluntary organizations of humans aimed at a common goal.
To get to the anarcho-capitalist society you dream of (maybe I do , too), we must start with the skills first. Are we teaching punishment and reward to our kids and our fellows? Or are we teaching the skills of collaboration? Without awareness of how we're acting and what we're teaching through our interactions with others (people tend to imitate other people), that voluntarist society may remain elusive.
Uhhh Uhhh, did you watch Flaked with and by Will Arnett? Even though the story is centered around people that go to an AA meeting it is much more about philosophy and psychology than it is about alcoholism.
I haven't actually seen that, no. I've looked at the Wikipedia page on it and it seems interesting. The reviews are not all that hot, but I try to avoid reviews so that I can watch entertainment with an open mind.
Well, I might be biased towards Will Arnett because I liked his character in 30Rock so much, but the series is refreshingly dark and serious at some points.
To me it was someone of a revelation when it comes to the mind set of selfish people. If you are interested in psychology and philosophy, it is actually really great entertainment. It also touches on the subject of guruism. It is very non-black and white. You do not have these evil characters that finally see the light at the end of the season. The human mind and human relations are much more complex than that.
You misunderstood me. I too believe it is possible. That is my ultimate ideal place we should be working towards.
I say it is not possible now. It has nothing to do with the systems themselves. It has to do with the educational quality of the masses and how they are more often swayed by emotion than reason. How most of them don't have the slightest idea what critical thinking is or how it works. How a majority of them think a sporting event is more important than a law that will impact everyone's life. How so many of them will not admit their own mistakes but instead always look for anyone but themselves to blame it on.
That is why I don't see it working now. We need to fix the education before I believe what you are talking about can work.
Why? The system you describe requires people that are responsible for their own actions and choices, and have a little pride in taking care of themselves and having some self reliance. Without that honestly anarchy right now would be the chaos that media and the government try to frame the word as meaning, when it doesn't mean that at all. It simply means No Rulers.
I totally think it is possible and that is what I am pushing for. I just don't see the population we have now as being capable of handling it and not turning it into a chaotic mess.
This is why I have chosen critical thinking as one of the things I speak about so often.
Every once in a while when I get off on a good rant with friends over the state of the world, I tell them to just imagine what the world could be like if all those people who are drowning in bread and games (football fans, soccer fans etc. - and I mean the people who are passive participants, not the people who actually play) would put all the time and money they invested into watching grown men kick balls into understanding how the monetary/political system works and try to change the world for the better. Until now, everyone has said essentially, "Yep, the world would be a much better place. But it is never going to happen."
Education is the key, but not inside the system we have today. We discussed this briefly before, I think I will revisit that idea in a future post.
I really like people addressing logical fallacies and giving examples on social media, it happens so rarely and is so instructive, both for myself and others. Sometimes it is really difficult to catch such fallacies because the discourse is skillfully constructed, but in the news media today they are so in your face you can't oversee them unless you aren't aware of what they are and how they function. Good contribution.
I don't think I misunderstood you. I think I didn't make my point clear. Here's my point. Critical thinking comes from collaboration, not from a system of discipline that is based on reward and punishment.
If a parent lies, the kid learns to lie. If a parent punishes a kid for failing to meet a certain standard set by the parent, without actually modeling that behavior and/or collaborating with the kid to teach the kid how to meet the standard, then yes, kids can grow up to be immoral or amoral. Reward and punishment doesn't teach any skills other than obedience or rebellion. Reward and punishment is the way America and many other countries are being run both in government and as societies.
I think you're right that the majority of adults alive now cannot imagine or function in anarchy, or as you put it, without a ruler. I am saying that the majority of adults alive now have been raised to believe that behavior modification through punishment and reward is how to raise kids and how to govern a nation. (For an in-depth discussion of the use of collaboration in child rearing, the book, "Raising Human Beings" is highly recommended reading.)
Just look at how the United States is so polarized now. I've seen the discussion in social media. Just about every political discussion is one-upmanship, with each side scoring points against the other side. That is not even a debate, much less collaboration.
The best way to teach critical thinking skills is to engage in collaboration. Collaboration brings peace. When there is peace, people can think. When there is peace in the home, kids can learn. When there is peace, we can share the fugitive fermentation of the thinking power, ideas (borrowed from Jefferson's letter to Ian MacPherson on patents). When we share ideas, we are none the poorer for doing so. We collaborate to share ideas.
It may take a generation or two to allow this to work. Yes, many adults and even some adolescents lack the critical thinking skills needed to live without rulers. But the path to get there is plain to me: teach the skill of critical thinking through collaboration. Collaboration is baked into our genes. Language arose because humans saw value in collaboration as a species. The future of the human species depends on our willingness to collaborate together.
Any society, even a voluntarist society is absolutely dependent on our collaboration skills to function. I just don't see any other way that it could.
I believe that both of us agree that anarchy is possible. But I suggest that the way to get there is to teach and live a lifestyle based on collaboration.
And so much of this has absolutely no critical thinking in it. The one upsmanship you referred to is generally so full of logical fallacies on ALL SIDES that it is glaring once you've started to look for them.
I am not talking about just falsehoods.
I'm talking about the use of the word "fair" or "unfair". That usually is not about logic, or reason it is purely tapping into an Appeal to Emotion. It so often works.
I'm talking about "We've always done this in the past", or the "If it's not broke don't fix it", or the "It was good enough for our ancestors", etc. These are all Appeal to Tradition fallacies. While there may be something to consider they are NOT reason to not try something different, yet so often that is exactly what they are used to stop. Protect the status quo.
Or the lovely Appeal to Authority... trot out some Hollywood Celebrity to make comments about global warming, physics, or any other thing that they are clueless about. They generally have no authority in the field, but it is often done. An actor doesn't like something... so what? Yet, it is called Appeal to Authority because let's say it is physics and they trot out Neil DeGrasse Tyson, or Bill Nye or someone else to endorse something and stop questioning. Sure it is a field they are well versed in, that makes them saying something more PROBABLE, but it should not be treated as an absolute. Science is rife with a scientist proposing something and all the other scientists saying that person is an idiot. In fact, it's happened to many of our greatest minds like Einstein. It took a lot of effort for them to take him seriously. Had people simply given in to the Appeal to Authority from all the scientists saying Einstein was an idiot the world would have been a much worse place. The news is full of such things.
Appeal to Popularity fallacy where they somehow equate the quantity of people that believe a thing is true as being logical proof. It is not. (This is also sometimes called Bandwagon)
Red Herring where the discussion was on one topic and as it isn't going where they want they wave some distraction over here for you to look at so you hopefully forget what was being discussed. We see this frequently these days. It's been very actively used on this whole Russian narrative that keeps swinging to point at a new red herring when the previous one was found to have no substance.
Glittering Generalities.... because this one leftist said something crazy, all leftist must be crazy. Because this one drunk driver hit someone with his car, all drunk drivers will hit someone with a car. Because one rich person is an asshole and will not help someone in need, all rich people are assholes and won't help people in need. Because, this guy abused his child and also was an advocate for spanking, all people who spank their children will abuse their children. Because one state had dead people voting for Hillary, all states must have dead people voting for Hillary. All of these are logical fallacies.
They are used against us. It is the population not recognizing these things which make manipulation and propaganda so effective as most propaganda I've seen is based in one way or another upon logical fallacies. Most commonly appeal to emotion, authority, or popularity.
Really great discourse on needs deprivation leading to violence, will check out some of your other stuff. I myself am of the opinion a voluntarist society is ultimately the most stable society, but you are right, people are not raised to it, they are not provided with the requisite skill sets by the current education system. That is the most frequent pushback I get when discussing voluntaryism with others, the belief that it is impossible because people don't know how to live together in civil society without somebody telling them what to do (the statist argument). Unfortunately I fear they are correct in a certain respect, for if we just decided to "go voluntarist" tomorrow, civilization would almost certainly suffer considerably because the understanding that altruism is also in one's own best interest is a step too far for many.
Funny thing is that you currently have more freedom as an entrepreneur and an employee in China. The laws might be rather tight but there is nobody to control you as long as you do not upset a bunch of people.
There is always the question what a business is actually allowed/able to do. Let me put the problem of grassroots capitalism in another way: If everything in the world is owned, which it is right now, how do you want to create something from nothing? Sure you got your own body to create new intellectual , but what if that is not your talent? The idea of capitalism in a negative lighting means to me that only the one who already own are able to further their possessions in a meaningful way. Being free to become a comedian or musician is no freedom at all.
If big companies will stop their dishonest ways of earning due to a completely free market, I would be more than happy. And it might be that we can finally get away from the Machiavellian strategies of rulership if we just put a system based on voluntarism. But even voluntarism has to have a base set of rules so it does not just get overwritten by the next best system that comes around.
The problem with these labels is that most people using them today have no clue what they really mean and they have turned them into some mutant monster of what they were supposed to mean.
So when you use that label on yourself you get mentally lumped with all of THEM. The only way to avoid this is to spend a long time explaining what you mean and how many people will give you a chance to do that? How much time do you have? How comfortable are you with having to constantly repeat yourself?
This is why I say I am an individual. I will qualify and say I see Anarcho-Capitalism as the long term goal I'd like to see and it would likely happen well after I am dead. I do not believe it would work today as our education system is crap and it does require people to be self responsible, and own up to their own mistakes rather than looking for scapegoats.
If I had to pick what I am actually closest to it is Libertarian with an emphasis on absolutely minimizing the size of the government to the smallest we could get it. Sometimes people call this Minarchist when they are having fun with labels and insist on putting people into boxes.
I don't actually fit into any particular box, not Libertarian, not Anarcho-Capitalist, etc.
I guess I do fit into the VOLUNTARYIST box. I do believe everything should be voluntary. I do not believe other people should be able to FORCE you to do things or that you should be able to FORCE others to do things.
My point exactly
Yeah maybe I will go over to call myself a social libertarian sounds exotic and think I get lumped up with "better" people ;)
For me you are a social Libertarian as well. That does not mean that I think we agree on all topics, but you actually talk A LOT about moral values and our Steemit communinty. I never trusted the rumor that you spread about being an anarchist, you agreed on the mask ban LAW after all. We need to learn a state can be something small that is actually organized by the people living in it and not just a tax collector. I actually can not find any counter to the logic argument of taxation being theft, so I have to agree with that. But state can also be a framework in which people can live as free as possible.
There are also occasions were the freedom can hinder the freedom of another. Like when you want to get in the bus, but it is full of people. There is nothing directly forcing you to stay out of the bus, but the freedom of all others to take the bus stops you from getting the bus.
Secret societies formed voluntaristic and they are most likely the ruling class at the moment. But hey, I am actually convinced that every person has good intentions somewhere in it's heart so maybe if people show that we are ready to live in a new form of society they will cease their power and influence.
Thanks for the intense commenting, I do appreciate it a lot, my friend :)
That is kind of redundant to me. Libertarian to me means socially liberal, and fiscally conservative. :) Liberal in the classic sense, not the modern mutant monster sense.
I am a realist. I do believe in anarchism. Yet, I've stated many times we are not where we need to be for that to work. So the mask ban law was within the confines of how things are today. If we go the way I am saying is my long term goal then I don't see a need for anything like that.
This is a case of you confusing me being a realist based upon the world around us today with the world I would like to see, but we currently do not live in.
The masks wouldn't protect such people if they used aggression. Non-Aggression principle does not mean will not defend.
If they want to stand out there and shout in masks and don't destroy property or attack people it won't be an issue. If the do those things then they are fair game as far as the NAP.
Yes, you do. But I am a pragmatist and that actually means that I hate it when people offer solutions that are not applicable in our current world. It reminds me of myself when i always argued "but my ideas should work in an ideal world".
Sure there has been the episode known as "Aufklärung" in German History where the private citiziens successfully stripped the Church and Monarchs from their power through science, education and the development of new political and philosophical ideas, at least as an aftermath. If us exchanging ideas via Steemit will help to raise awareness about social problems then that might be a very valuable contribution for future generations.
But I am greedy I want more than that. And you tried to do more as well by supporting Ron Paul. I never did such a thing and I truly envy you even though you had a very negative experience trying to change the system from the inside.
Yes, I witnessed how rigged and corrupt it is even at that level. Though there are a lot of changes happening in the U.S. right now. Perhaps from within may someday actually be feasible. It is hard to say.
nice post
Ich mag deine Idee von socialismus.
Danke, Jean-Pierre. Ich habe dich ehrlich gesagt als eher zentralistischen Menschen eingeschätzt, weil du ja pro-Eu bist, entschuldige falls ich mich da von Vorurteilen habe leiten lassen ;). Da aber viele deutsche sozialistische Denker bei uns auch in der Schule besprochen werden haben die Deutschen, so wie viele andere Europäer auch, eine relativ gute Vorstellung davon, dass Sozialismus auch viele positive Bedeutungen hat.
Sozialismus schließt ja kein pro-EU aus.
jo, das stimmt. Allerdings sehe ich mein Streben nach kleiner/lokaler Regierung im Gegensatz zu den Bestrebungen der EU ganz Europa als einen Staat zu betrachten.
Ich verstehe es auch wenn Leute sagen "nur ein globales System kann wirklich gerecht sein". Allerdings sehe ich viele Probleme dabei von so weit oben herab den Menschen ein System das alle Menschen gerecht und gleich behandeln soll. Vor allem das Problem das Gerechtigkeit und Gleichheit serh subjektiv seien können.
Das ding ist umso kleiner ein Staat umso mehr prozent der bevölkerung ist nur in der Regierung bescheftig und ich meine das nur Europa als Gemeinschaft wirklich stark sein kann und einflus haben kann. Nur gemeinsam können sie mit großen Staaten wie China oder den USA konkurieren. Ich hätte nichts gegen einen europäishen Staat auch wen ich die probleme sehe die es mit sich führt.
Das Argument hört man oft, aber genau das bezweifel ich. Japan und Süd Korea sind auch sehr kleine Länder und haben trotzdem sehr starke und einflussreiche Wirtschaften. Deutschland ist ja immerhin schon alleine auf Rang 5 der größten BIPs.
Der Gedanke, dass wir als Land oder Länderblock ein Gegengewicht zu Amerika und China darstellen müssen, ist meiner Meinung nach ein Trugschluss der eigentlich auf imperialistischen und geopolitischen Ambitionen basiert.
Nur weil ich ein kleines Land in der UN bin, heißt das ja nicht das meine Argumente und Vorschläge besser oder schlechter sind. Ich kann sie bloß mit weniger Macht untermauern bzw. durchpeitschen, wie es die amerikanische Regierung gerne tut.
Für mich ist die Erweiterung zum Europäischen Staat nur eine Schmälerung meiner Stimme bzw. meiner Möglichkeit Einfluss auf Politik zu nehmen.
Das ding ist dass mit einem großen Staat man nicht von anderen Abhängig ist was eben ein großer Vorteil ist. Nehmt man eine sehr technologisch fortgeschritene Region mit sehr viel Industrie dann wird sie enorm von den regionen abhängig sein die Nahrung produzieren, was kein Vorteil ist.
Diese "Abhängigkeit" beschreibt ja eigentlich nur das man viel importieren muss, das machen wir ja heutzutage auch schon und da ist eigentlich erstmal nicht schlechtes dabei, wenn man jetzt mal von den Energiekosten, die der Transport, verschlingt absieht.
Angenommen Düsseldorf wäre ein unabhängiger Staat und ebenso alle anderen Städte in DE. Die Stadt nicht viel Ackerfläche, daher werden wir wohl Nahrung importieren müssen. Wir haben aber hunderte von Möglichkeiten (hunderte von Städten mit einem Nahrungsüberschuss, die Nahrung exportieren).
Mit Abhängigkeit verbinde ich den Druck der auf uns ausgeübt werden kann, dadurch dass eine andere Macht eine Kontrolle über ein essentielles Gut hat, das wir brauchen. Wäre aber die ganze Welt stärker dezentralisiert gäbe es solche Monopole (hoffentlich) nicht.
Natürlich ist es schwer so als einzelnes kleiner Staat, wenn der Rest der Welt sich zu einer Weltregierung zusammen tuen will und man da nicht beitreten möchte, oder gewisse Forderungen der Weltregierung gegenüber hat.
Das dies aber trotzdem möglich ist zeigen ja die Schweizer ;)
Very informative article my friend. Uncovers many wrong beliefs and I like the Image;
Thank you, the picture shows how socialism is realized in many of our societies, I hope that people will understand that true socialism is much different.
Absolutely, most of the population take socialism exactly as you showed in the picture. An eye opener, nobody on the real side!!
These are appeals to emotion and they generally work, because they feel and sound good but people don't usually truly spend much time thinking about them other than how they make them feel. We all want to be fair right?
Yet, in a voluntary society if I AGREE to work for a certain wage who are you to tell me or the person I agreed to work for that this is unfair. I chose to do so. I could refuse, and if others agreed with me and also refused then it is likely that employer would either realize they can't actually afford to run that business or they will raise their wages until people start to decide that is "fair".
The thing here is that people will state "I have to eat, I had no choice".
In a free market voluntary society there are ways to eat, and choices galore. Can you raise animals to feed yourself? Can you grow crops? Can you use your entrepreneurship and provide products, services, or entertainment that others want? There are choices. If you don't want to do certain choices that is totally your choice. Yet you also shouldn't be expecting people to just support you because you don't have the desire to seek opportunities that will work for you. You cannot expect opportunities to just be handed to you with no effort on your part. So could you be in a bad situation where you need to do something you don't want to do in order to survive? Sure. Yet, that is called reality. I don't actually know anywhere and any system that this is not the case.
I think it is really unfair I have to take a shit occasionally and deal with that nasty odor, and then I have to wipe my ass. That's pretty unfair, and I wish I didn't have to deal with it. Yet when it comes to fairness there is also a thing called reality. We are going to have to do some things we would rather not do. The ones imposed by reality we have no control over. We must do them.
The ones imposed or offered by other people we have a choice over. That choice should always be voluntary without the threat of force.
Choice can be corrupted. The best example would be the election system itself. Freedom of choice does not equal freedom. I could offer someone a punch in the face or a kick to the balls, is that person free then?
One of Marx or Brecht core messages "Erst kommt das fressen, dann die Moral". I tend to agree with it. The threat of death will let most humans act without morality and that is hard to change.
No to the first two questions. I live in an apartment with no animals allowed. Yes to third one. I am in no way someone that should need social help, but what about heavily disabled people, severly ill, children and elderly? Sure some of them might have family and friends to take care of them, but some maybe do not.
I also think something like water supply (Kanalisation) is hard to privatize. It is such a basic need for everyone and it would avoid a ton of bureaucracy if it is just free to use.
I suspect patreon, kickstarter, indiegogo, etc (aka voluntary) would be far more effective at helping such people. Such people can be helped without FORCE. The problem is that those that would choose to FORCE people do so because they don't believe people would help. I wonder where they get that idea? They can't read minds, so the only mind they can truly look at would be their own. So perhaps they see themselves as someone that only helps people when they are forced to and thus they project and say the same of all of society.
EDIT: I'd also like to state that even with the FORCED help people still fall through the cracks and fail to get the help, so in a voluntary system that would also likely be the case. There will be failures. That is reality.
meh, you are actually correct on that one. I know a handicapped person on Steemit @sumsum and one of her main concerns is that people do not care too little about her handicap but actually too much "It is great that you do social work, even though you are handicapped". She does not want to get appreciated because of her handicaps but because of her achievements and qualities as a person.
Sure she would love to have less barriers when it comes to library she visits or restrooms at restaurants she can not use, but those are exactly the things that could be easily financed via crowdfunding instead of taxing people. The very idea of inclusion is to not create a separate class for people we perceive as weak, so I should not use such a class to bolster my argument.
What you offer is irrelevant. I could choose a third choice at that point. YOU don't get to decide choices for someone else. That is not voluntary. People decide their own choices.
aha, so if you only have the option to work for a company or be a company there should be other options for people to live their live?
I think their is a huge difference between being able to choose or being able to act freely.
Many people said America will die without the Sowjet Union because they do not have an enemy anymore. Before that Americans could say "you don't like free markets, and want more socialism? Go to Russia and die from hunger". It also often overlooked what pressure the american state put out on the communist countries through geo-political tactics, like putting trade embargos on NK and then mocking the poor wealth of the country.
Anyways my point was that neither America provided a truly free market nor did the UdSSR provide true socialism for its people. Having the "free choice" between these 2 warped forms of the market systems was sold to some as freedom.
You mean the many people that don't know their history. The many people that don't know that America was around long before animosity with the Russians?
The many people that don't know that prior to 1913 there was no such thing as the income tax in the U.S. and it was expressly prohibited by the constitution prior to that? Yet, somehow we had 130+ years where we fought several wars, and funded our government without the IRS or taxing peoples wages...
The people who think "One Nation Under God" is how it has always been without knowing that that was added to our pledge of allegiance in 1954?
The people who think getting rid of the Department of Education is a crazy idea when that didn't even exist in the U.S. until 1986? I'd argue the education was better before that.
The people who believe not interfering with other countries but being totally willing to trade with them is the same as isolationism, when in fact it is not isolationist at all... it is simply non-intervention?
Do you mean the same people that likely have no clue that WE the Americans actually had invaded and occupied a Russian city prior to World War I. Woodrow Wilson actually had 23 police acts, and things that could be considered acts of war during his presidency... so not only did he give us the Federal Reserve (private banking cartel), and the IRS (previously constitutionally illegal form of taxation), but he also had 23 WARS if you go expressly by the concept of acts of War.
There are a lot of things people say. I'm often curious how much those people actually know about history. There is a lot I don't know. Many of the things I listed above were NEW to me when I stumbled upon them.
I bet you have similar things in Germany.
to be fair the America referred to in this saying is the corrupt corporate mafia with an ambition that emerged as United States after WW2.
I did not know there was one person that managed to introduce FED and taxation. Would you say that taxation in the form of taxacting only the good you purchase but not on the work you do is a step in the right direction? It is no the tax free utopia but it shifts tayes to the place where it belongs: consumption instead of creation.
And yes I do know you have been at war countless times before in between and after the world wars. I just don't know many details, to be fair many European countries were trying to conquer the world in the shadow of the industrial revolution and the renaissance.
Now really the only reason taxes are an issue at all is due to the government needing them to exist. So I will answer your question based on the current paradigm where we do have governments.
This was how it was essentially done before the IRS was implemented in 1913. I have said often we should tax goods, and things that are considered luxury items could be potentially taxed a bit higher IF such tax was going to exist. You think you need that yacht? Fine. It has a nice luxury tax on it. You think you need that third home? Same thing.
I believe a person should have one home tax exempt free. I believe some basic food goods potentially should be tax exempt.
I think we could totally pay for everything simply with sales and luxury taxes. Even better since they are paid at time of purchase they are voluntary, you can choose to buy them or not. They do not offer loopholes, tax shelters, etc.
The reason I believe some items like basic non-luxury food items should not be taxed this way is because people must eat. Thus, it is not a voluntary tax.
Yet something like Caviar, Fancy Ice Cream, Alcohol, etc. Such things should have a sales tax on them.
Yet, if you don't want to do that then even just a flat sales tax on everything would likely be more effective than income tax.
Ultimately, if we had no government and crowd funded our needs then those taxes would be unnecessary as well.
Wow, I did not think you where that much of a socialist xD
Cool to see that you would see the taxation of goods as a step in the right direction. I had a very similar line of thinking, when I heard the idea (no more tax shelters, less bureaucracy, tax hit "the right people") . I was never someone who cried about the high tobacco taxes. If a cigarette is really expensive I might value it higher and not smoke 10 per day. Decent beer and decent water are around the same price tag in Germany, btw. Buying a can of coke is usually a little more expensive than a bottle of beer...
As far as the U.S. being "Freedom". We have 4% of the worlds population, but 25% of the worlds prisoners. Does that sound free?
nope :)
And at that point people are not really proposing that so much. Every inch of the planet is owned, so many ideas would only truly be applicable if we were say landing on a new planet. The people that talk about Homesteading have some good ideas for that.
or push the reset button aka revolution :3
I appreciate homesteading but even their resources have to come from somewhere.
By the way I like to consider myself logical. I absolutely love the German language. I spent many years studying it in high school, and one college course and I then never really used it and that was long ago so I've forgotten most of what I knew. I took a French class in College and hated it. The plethora of silent letters (way beyond those in English) drove me absolutely insane. :) Spanish I only know from interacting with people verbally so I can speak some spanish, but not read it for the most part.
So I actually like the German language quite a bit.
THANK YOU! Do you know how often I have to google words like "necessarily" just because I need to check the writing? Well this one has no silent letters but the pronunciation-to-writing relation is not very logical in english and in french. Why would you ever use silent letters? I actually prefer British English a little bit because they are closer in their pronunciation to German. I guess I will make language course at some point after all.
Since I started having political conversations in German here on Steemit I actually started to appreciate my mother language much more. It might be natural that I can just express myself more precisely in my mother tongue but I think German would be a great replacement for at least scientific terminology which is mostly latin and old greek at the moment.
Do you also have the problems with the gender-specific articles? I know people who lived more then half their lives in Germany but still get that wrong even though they speak fluently otherwise.
I understood it, but I'd make a lot of mistakes with it.
Did you ever research Esperanto? That was supposedly generated to be logical. It was an intentionally created language. I've often heard tales about it, but I've never actually looked into it.
same. It sounds like any latin based language to me when spoken, but I appreciate the idea and I might try to learn it at some point. Korean is first tho, asian language is pretty exciting because you see a whole different cultural history engrained in the language.
I actually think I'd be pretty good with languages if I spent time at it and was exposed to it enough. I watched the entire 44 episodes of The Legend of Bruce Lee in I believe Mandarin (could have been Cantonese I cannot tell the difference) and it had no subtitles or english. :) I found myself understanding bits of it by the end. :)
Well you need to have some kind of reason to expose yourself to a language other then "you want to learn it". For English this has been series and movies as well.
I would get together some basic japanese dialogue due to all the subtitled animes I watch, but the writing system of japanese is just awful, it makes no sense compared to korean or chinese. Now I am stuck with being able to write some Korean words and being able to take part in a very basic conversation in Japanese, not very helpful so far, so maybe I will try some Korean Movies next.