Socialist Psychology: There Are Two Kinds of Socialism

page: 1
5
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 10 2010 @ 12:24 AM
link   
Economist Walter Block provides us with a masterpiece of sociology in this journal article that makes the case for two distinct kinds of socialism.

Walter Block writes the best papers on the planet.


The thesis of this paper is that the values and motivations underlying socialism are very different, and depend upon the types of socialism under consideration. With regard to what I shall label coercive socialism, e.g., socialism in the sense of which the word is currently used, 1 the antecedents are envy, greed, power lust, ignorance, resentment, and lack of knowledge of even the most elementary aspects of economics. As concerns voluntary socialism, the phrase I have chosen to connote such cooperative organizations as the kibbutz, the / monastery, the family, this is essentially animated by benevolence, altruism and empathy for our fellow human creatures.

Since the most remarkable or provocative aspect of this thesis is that there are actually not one but rather two varieties of socialism, section I is devoted to an explication, elaboration and defense of this claim. Section II explores the basis of voluntary socialism and III does so for the coercive counterpart to this philosophy.


Block speaks on socialism and its close relationship with fascism:





posted on Aug, 10 2010 @ 12:56 AM
link   
Less than 2 minutes in, and he thinks the Nazi and Stalin were socialists... *sigh*

FISSION MAILED



posted on Aug, 10 2010 @ 01:24 AM
link   
reply to post by ghostsoldier
 


Can't offer any rebuttal? eh?



posted on Aug, 10 2010 @ 01:32 AM
link   
reply to post by ghostsoldier
 


I just read Albert Einstiens take on Socialism in your signature. That makes much more sense to me then this video.



posted on Aug, 10 2010 @ 01:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by ghostsoldier
Less than 2 minutes in, and he thinks the Nazi and Stalin were socialists... *sigh*

FISSION MAILED


The Nazi's called themselves socialists, thus I don't think Block is incorrect in using the terminology of socialism to describe the State they had envisioned.

If you continue listening, Block explains what's going on.



posted on Aug, 10 2010 @ 02:17 AM
link   
Altruism cannot be coerced into society anymore than peacefulness can be beaten into a person. This is the basic kindergarten logic that Statists of any stripe refuse not to remember for some reason.

Being raised in the fishtank of State violence does funny things to the mind, I guess.



posted on Aug, 10 2010 @ 02:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Neo_Serf

Being raised in the fishtank of State violence does funny things to the mind, I guess.



Yes it does.

Americans suffer from a form of Stockholm Syndrome.



posted on Aug, 10 2010 @ 03:26 AM
link   
Americans will continue to spout the greatness of capitalism even when they no longer have a job or are being forced to work for the wages of those in the 3rd world. As long as the rich dont have to share their wealth they will be happy because they have been fooled into thinking one day they too will be able to get some of that wealth.

The American dream has been sold and is firmly hardwired into Americans brains.



posted on Aug, 10 2010 @ 03:59 AM
link   
reply to post by woodwardjnr
 


So are you a communist or advocate of another system of forced wealth redistribution?

Have you failed in the unfree market that we have and are you bitter because of it?

Is that why you want my money?



posted on Aug, 10 2010 @ 04:15 AM
link   
reply to post by Exuberant1
 


We have socialist policies in the UK , like free health care, free schooling, free milk for under 5's, all paid for by peoples taxes, no one is forced to pay those taxes down the barrel of gun.

People value the health service and believe it's worth paying tax for, same with schools. We all want children to be educated whether we have them or not. It's all about creating a better society. Improving the conditions for all not just those who can afford it.

I believe there is a strong enough argument for more socialist policies, like re-nationalising the utilities and railways.

There is a lot of inequality in the UK and I believe we need socialist policies to balance things out , because believe me the free market wont sort out our inequalities it just serves to increase them



posted on Aug, 10 2010 @ 04:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by woodwardjnr
reply to post by Exuberant1
 

..... because believe me the free market wont sort out our inequalities it just serves to increase them


We don't have a free market and neither do you.

So that is a bit of a strawman argument; calling an unfree market a free market and then blaming it for whatever suites you at the time.



posted on Aug, 10 2010 @ 04:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by Exuberant1

Originally posted by woodwardjnr
reply to post by Exuberant1
 

..... because believe me the free market wont sort out our inequalities it just serves to increase them


We don't have a free market and neither do you.

So that is a bit of a strawman argument; calling an unfree market a free market and then blaming it for whatever suites you at the time.


Selling off Britains utilities to private companies , closing cole mines because imported coal is cheaper are all results of free market ideology



posted on Aug, 10 2010 @ 04:31 AM
link   
reply to post by woodwardjnr
 


So what will you do with the people who refuse to work on your collective farms?

Have you thought of a way to motivate the masses other than force or the threat of force?



posted on Aug, 10 2010 @ 04:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by Exuberant1
reply to post by woodwardjnr
 


So what will you do with the people who refuse to work on your collective farms?

Have you thought of a way to motivate the masses other than force or the threat of force?


The motivation is that if we all work we all get to share the fruits of our labour rather than give all our fruits to the owner of the land.

Better motivation than working the land all day, only to know the owner of the land will benefit personally from your work and sell the fruits of your labour, he may pay you some money which you can use to buy back some of the fruits of your labour, but it will only be enough to make sure you can still work the owners land.



posted on Aug, 10 2010 @ 04:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by woodwardjnr

The motivation is that if we all work we all get to share the fruits of our labour rather than give all our fruits to the owner of the land.



The owner of the land took the risk by investing in the land and starting a business. He isn't forcing anyone to work for him either - unlike the various socialist/communist/loser nations of the world do with their people.

*Now do you intend to do away with currency in your utopia?



posted on Aug, 10 2010 @ 05:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by Exuberant1

Originally posted by woodwardjnr

The motivation is that if we all work we all get to share the fruits of our labour rather than give all our fruits to the owner of the land.



The owner of the land took the risk by investing in the land and starting a business. He isn't forcing anyone to work for him either - unlike the various socialist/communist/loser nations of the world do with their people.

*Now do you intend to do away with currency in your utopia?


Your the one who brought up the Utopian Idea of my collective farm not me. All I'm arguing is for more socialist policies from my government to balance the effects of Capitalism on our society.

Ideally in MY utopia no one can be 3x's as wealthy as the poorest. But thats a utopia and not reality



posted on Aug, 10 2010 @ 05:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by woodwardjnr

Ideally in MY utopia no one can be 3x's as wealthy as the poorest. But thats a utopia and not reality



And how would that ideal Utopia of yours enforce such a standard?

In other words, what happens when someone saves more wealth/capital than is allowed and they refuse to give it up?



posted on Aug, 10 2010 @ 05:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by Exuberant1

Originally posted by woodwardjnr

Ideally in MY utopia no one can be 3x's as wealthy as the poorest. But thats a utopia and not reality



And how would that ideal Utopia of yours enforce such a standard?

In other words, what happens when someone saves more wealth/capital than is allowed and they refuse to give it up?


Strict taxation would ensure that wasn't possible, as long as you are 3x'x as wealthy as the poorest, why do you need to be more wealthy?

I'm looking at those who would benefit from the system like the poorer in the utopia not those who want to continue their capitalist greed.



posted on Aug, 10 2010 @ 06:41 AM
link   
reply to post by woodwardjnr
 


So you mean to use men with guns and gulags to enforce this limitation of savings and wealth within your ideal utopia.

I expected that.

Your ideal Utopia is so wonderful that it would have to be involuntary and enforced with violence and threats of violence.



posted on Aug, 10 2010 @ 06:48 AM
link   
reply to post by ghostsoldier
 



Originally posted by ghostsoldier
Less than 2 minutes in, and he thinks the Nazi and Stalin were socialists... *sigh*

FISSION MAILED


Maybe you should learn what the NAZI party actually was before making such an ignorant statement and trying to comically denounce the entire OP in one line. You've failed miserable, and whats even more sad is that 4 people think you are right.

NAZI comes from Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei (National Socialist German Workers' Party).

Mission failed.

Thanks for sharing the vid OP, thought that was highly insightful. I haven't been a fan of Block's commentary but that was interesting.

Cheers.





new topics
 
5
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join