Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

The Workers Dream: Socialism and Communism

page: 1
17
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 27 2013 @ 05:27 AM
link   
This is a thread I have wanted to do for a while. Basically I wanted to explore the basics and introduce other users about socialism and communism. You would have to continue to study future since there is so much to dissect. This is more like a report; than being right or wrong. Because of all the different opinions of so many different people. I would do my best to flush out everything on this thread. My family has a extremely dislike for socialism because of their conservative views and my parental grandparents families emigrated from the Soviet Union and Cuba after the successful revolutions. They left because of their strong Christian faiths and I wouldn't doubt other reasons. Myself? I have volunteered for the union Unite Here with my comrades who were members of the PSL. I love it because I can meet all kinds of people and learn about socialism from different people. I wouldn't call myself a socialist. To be honest I do not know how to identify myself politically. I'm just interested in understanding and trying to make everything work properly. I feel labels limit progress. But enough about me and my history with socialism. In this thread I will introduce the basics, the different views on socialism, the difference between socialism and communism, the various characters, facts, etc. Whatever I'll find useful for this dread.

Different Forms Of Socialism
These are common forms of socialism around the world.
Democratic socialism

Modern democratic socialism is a broad political movement that seeks to propagate the ideals of socialism within the context of a democratic system. Many democratic socialists support social democracy as a temporary measure to reform the current system, but others support more revolutionary tactics to establish socialism. Conversely, modern social democracy emphasises a program of gradual legislative reform of capitalism in order to make it more equitable and humane, while the theoretical end goal of building a socialist society is either completely forgotten or redefined in a pro-capitalist way. The two movements are widely similar both in terminology and in ideology, although there are a few key differences.


Social democracy

Social democracy is not itself a socialist system. Rather, traditional social democrats advocated the creation of socialism through political reforms by operating within the existing political system of capitalism. The social democratic movement sought to elect socialists to political office to implement reforms. The modern social democratic movement has abandoned the goal of moving toward a socialist economy and instead advocates for social reforms to improve capitalism, such as a welfare state and unemployment benefits. It is best demonstrated by the economic format which has been used in Sweden, Denmark, Norway, and Finland in the past few decades. This approach has been called the Nordic model.


Difference Between Democratic socialism & Social democracy

The major difference between social democracy and democratic socialism is the object of their politics: contemporary social democrats support a welfare state and unemployment insurance as a means to "humanize" capitalism, whereas democratic socialists seek to replace capitalism with a socialist economic system, arguing that any attempt to "humanize" capitalism through regulations and welfare policies would distort the market and create economic contradictions.



Social Anarchism

Libertarian socialists believe in converting present-day private property into the commons or public goods, while retaining respect for personal property. Social anarchism is used to specifically describe tendencies within anarchism that have an emphasis on the communitarian and cooperative aspects of anarchist theory and practice. Social anarchism includes (but is not limited to) anarcho-collectivism, anarcho-communism, some forms of libertarian socialism, anarcho-syndicalism, and social ecology.



Marxist Socialism

In Marxist theory, socialism, lower-stage communism or the socialist mode of production refers to a specific historical phase of economic development and its corresponding set of social relations that eventually supersede capitalism in the schema of historical materialism.

Socialsm Marxism
Socialism Wiki Article
Social Anarchy wiki

Communism
Marxist Communism

Communism is the third step of a three step plan – the first step is revolution (to remove the monarchy or government), the second step is the establishment of a ruling proletariat which is called “socialism” (a government of the people). When the socialist government attains its main goal – removal of all private property ownership, the government is meant to step down and the state becomes headless – this is communism.


Marx is commonly refereed as the "father of communism". However, there are other "fathers" of communism like Peter Kropotkin who disagreed with Marx and Engles for the need of a socialist state after a revolution. Basically there would be a revolution which then would just go directly to communism. Critics believe the state would be built that would deter from Communism which would be no different than the previous state.
Anarcho Communism
Listverse Link

History of socialism

The history of socialism has its origins in the French Revolution of 1789 and the changes brought about by the Industrial Revolution, although it has precedents in earlier movements and ideas.


Thomas More coined the term "utopia" in 1515 in his treatise titled "Utopia," but utopian imaginings began long before his. Plato described a similar environment when he wrote the philosophical work "Republic" in 360 B.C. In 1627, Francis Bacon's "New Atlantis" advocated a more scientific approach, rooted in the scientific method. Bacon envisioned a research-institute-like society where inhabitants studied science in an effort to create a harmonious environment through their accumulation of knowledge. In addition to these landmark works, more than 40 utopian-themed novels were published from 1700 to 1850, cementing its status as a very popular ideal. Because many social injustices -- such as slavery and oppression -- were running rampant, the theme was quite popular among embittered and dispirited populations. While a French revolutionary named François Noël Babeuf is credited with the idea of doing away with private property to create equality and is often considered the first socialist, the concept wasn't popularized until the late 1700s, when the Industrial Revolution caused some drastic changes around the world.


Source
Source 2

This is a wall of text! I couldn't cram everything in my original post. But the links serve as the rest of the story. Hopefully you link my opening post.




posted on Mar, 27 2013 @ 05:34 AM
link   
reply to post by Phoenix267
 


I believe in Socialism.

It can be implemented such that it doesn't equal everything all the detractors get all mouthy foamy and conspicuously over defensive about.

S+F

Expect a ton of bricks to be dropping in with all that conspicuous overly defensive mouthy foamy ranting against Socialism soon.




posted on Mar, 27 2013 @ 05:36 AM
link   
Thanks. I'm just the messenger. So guys do not shoot me! I wouldn't be surprise if I saw different users debating with another soon. I just want to share my knowledge and learn from others here.



posted on Mar, 27 2013 @ 05:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by Druscilla
reply to post by Phoenix267
 


I believe in Socialism.

It can be implemented such that it doesn't equal everything all the detractors get all mouthy foamy and conspicuously over defensive about.


Okay so explain how "it can be implemented" so us "mouthy foamy and conspicuously over defensive" types can have a better understanding.

How would you implement Socialism amongst 300 million people? Would you just decree that their property is no longer their own, but rather the State's? What if people resist? I am honestly curious to hear how you would implement such.



posted on Mar, 27 2013 @ 05:48 AM
link   
reply to post by ownbestenemy
 


Socialism doesn't necessarily negate private property or private ownership of anything.

You may want to read through the descriptions and types of Socialism before you get all nose-looky-downy at folks.



Edit: Let me add this as a teaser -
Politics would be rearranged such that a political career would no longer be a convenient path toward wealth and power, but a position of responsibility and accountability.
How so?
Every elected official would need live and conduct themselves in and under conditions similar to the least of those they represent.
Large population of homeless/unemployed and others? Mayor is sleeping in a tent on the mayor's residence lawn and eating soup kitchen fare, or what can get got on food stamps until housing, employment, and all those basic of basic needs are provided for.
From the bottom up, across the entire nation, there will be a change.
As the least common denominator rises, so to does the comfort and perks associated with the offices representing such, and so too does the rest of the nation profit and prosper.

You don't build a house from the attic down. You lay a foundation first.
Such a foundation need not remove private ownership of anything from anyone.
As the benchmark level of 'least' rises, the whole is floated upon its rise.


edit on 27-3-2013 by Druscilla because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 27 2013 @ 06:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Druscilla
You may want to read through the descriptions and types of Socialism before you get all nose-looky-downy at folks.



Never mind then. Apparently you just want to attack or try to attempt wit in responses rather than engage in discussion given two post now that have proven it.

I wasn't "nose-looky-downy", it was an honest question. You side-stepped it. Me thinks you don't even believe your own view upon it.

Or maybe Britannica is in on some vast conspiracy.....

socialism, social and economic doctrine that calls for public rather than private ownership or control of property and natural resources.
Looky there; public ownership.

Maybe the dictionary is in on it too:

a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.


Ludwig von Mises?

It is the aim of Socialism to transfer the means of production from private ownership to the ownership of organized society, to the State.


There are different degrees on how one views socialism, but you have offered none other than "I believe in socialism". I asked you to what extent and how would you implement it? Are we talking wide-scale government control over enterprise? A mixture of?

Either engage in an adult conversation as presented by the OP on the merits of your views or continue your cute quips, matters not to me, but it is sad that your only refute to my questions is I am being nosy-looky-downsy,,,,when you have no idea what my apparent view upon the subject is.



posted on Mar, 27 2013 @ 06:19 AM
link   
reply to post by ownbestenemy
 


Review my edit above.

And besides that, who needs adhere to some rigorous definition outlined by someone else as to what they think socialism is, or should be?

There's all kinds of socialism. I could care less about all the fear mongering over literal interpretations where pictures of private property seizure are painted in bold scary strokes, where totaltarian regimes clam down on anything and everything.

Certainly there's extremes, but, who wants extremes?



posted on Mar, 27 2013 @ 06:45 AM
link   
reply to post by Druscilla
 

You still haven't answered his question. How would you implement it now? What would you take and who from to give to others? Will you tell small business owners "you didn't build that" and take their businesses from them? What exactly would you do?



posted on Mar, 27 2013 @ 06:52 AM
link   
I prefer the socialistic democracy, something like Denmark.

They have extremely high taxes, especially for rich people. Although still the salaries are very high compared to rest of Europe.

The prices and taxes are truly over the top. For example 0,5 liter of beer costs 7.50 $ or even more. On foods there is fat tax. The more fat in the food, the higher the price. Although not sure whether this law exists to this day. They talked about wanting to, when I was there. Gas costs around 6 euros (7,60 dollars).Even sodas were taxed high


Free health care.

free university education, even for people from other countries in EU.

Lots of public stadiums and bicycle roads. One of the healthiest countries in Europe.

One of the safest place to live in Europe. Low crime rates.


Some day I will propably go to live in Denmark
Seems like a paradise



posted on Mar, 27 2013 @ 07:07 AM
link   
reply to post by DarthMuerte
 


That's one of the problems so many have developed in bias against a Provident Socialism.
Nothing needs be taken or forced on anyone.

Community incentives would work just fine, especially combined with restructuring the responsibilities, and accountability of leadership.

For instance, myself and several neighbors have community gardens on our respective properties.
We OWN our properties, yet, our gardens are freely available to everyone to share in cultivation and to take what's wanted or needed.
I can, on a whim, level my garden and put up a Zen rock garden for aesthetic purposes only if I wanted to as it's my property, but, what good does that do the community, my neighbors without gardens whom derive enjoyment and pleasure in the occasional attendance and fresh vegetables?

It fosters reciprocity and community incentive on mutual support toward general prosperity.

Public, city owned property could be managed similarly. People wouldn't need be required to cultivate gardens and contribute, but creating incentive for participation through such things as a % break on neighborhood owner's association dues and maintenance, city tax, and other such could create greater participation, all voluntary, and all at zero loss of private ownership.

It's a matter of community participation and mutual support in creating incentives for collectively beneficial social contracts where the overall community prospers as a result.

With private contributory gardening alone, nationwide as community incentives, we'd not have the demographics of hungry we currently have in the nation.

The problem with the current American culture is the inherent selfishness associated with it. An attitude of responsibility toward one's community and caring for its overall prosperity is an entirely foreign concept to most.

It gets boiled down to ME ME ME ME ME, and fear mongering over What is the government going to TAKE from ME ME ME ME now?

I mean, just listen to your own comment above about forcing small businesses to do ... whatever, forcing, taking, forcing, taking. It's such an entirely male aggressive rape-like attitude; take, force,take.

What are YOU doing for your community? With a community awareness toward fostering local providence, it doesn't take much by way of contributing to have a visible impact toward the greater prosperity of the whole.

edit on 27-3-2013 by Druscilla because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 27 2013 @ 07:19 AM
link   
reply to post by Cabin
 


You are mixing terms here. Denmark is formally known as a "representative democracy" (which in many ways, is not different from the United States). They have more social programs funded via a heavy tax burden, but that hardly makes them "socialist". Private enterprise and private ownership still thrive and are allowed in Denmark.



posted on Mar, 27 2013 @ 09:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by Druscilla
reply to post by DarthMuerte
 


That's one of the problems so many have developed in bias against a Provident Socialism.
Nothing needs be taken or forced on anyone.
We are going by what we have seen. Force is apparently part and parcel to socialism.


Originally posted by DruscillaCommunity incentives would work just fine, especially combined with restructuring the responsibilities, and accountability of leadership.
To me "commuity incentives" means taxation used to redistribute wealth. So, explain to me how I am wrong here.


Originally posted by DruscillaFor instance, myself and several neighbors have community gardens on our respective properties.
We OWN our properties, yet, our gardens are freely available to everyone to share in cultivation and to take what's wanted or needed.
I can, on a whim, level my garden and put up a Zen rock garden for aesthetic purposes only if I wanted to as it's my property, but, what good does that do the community, my neighbors without gardens whom derive enjoyment and pleasure in the occasional attendance and fresh vegetables?

It fosters reciprocity and community incentive on mutual support toward general prosperity.
I have no problem with this. No force is involved. I call this "volunteerism". That is when people decide, with no government coercion, to work together for the betterment of the community. There are also no penalties for "opting out". No force, I am fine with that.


Originally posted by DruscillaPublic, city owned property could be managed similarly. People wouldn't need be required to cultivate gardens and contribute, but creating incentive for participation through such things as a % break on neighborhood owner's association dues and maintenance, city tax, and other such could create greater participation, all voluntary, and all at zero loss of private ownership.
BOOM! Redistributionism and force involved right there. This is where we part ways. If I choose not to participate, I am FORCED to subsidize those who do. Do you not see the problem there?


Originally posted by DruscillaIt's a matter of community participation and mutual support in creating incentives for collectively beneficial social contracts where the overall community prospers as a result.

With private contributory gardening alone, nationwide as community incentives, we'd not have the demographics of hungry we currently have in the nation.
Which is all well and good right up until you coerce others into participating or penalize them with government confiscation of wealth for not desiring to participate.




Originally posted by DruscillaThe problem with the current American culture is the inherent selfishness associated with it. An attitude of responsibility toward one's community and caring for its overall prosperity is an entirely foreign concept to most.

It gets boiled down to ME ME ME ME ME, and fear mongering over What is the government going to TAKE from ME ME ME ME now?
Why don't all of you socialists BE the change you want to see without coercing others to participate? Want more money for schools? give it. Want to pay people not to work? Go for it. Why force those who disagree to participate? Be the change, show us the way. If your system is all you believe it to be, more and more people will adopt it as they see the benefits for doing so.


Originally posted by DruscillaI mean, just listen to your own comment above about forcing small businesses to do ... whatever, forcing, taking, forcing, taking. It's such an entirely male aggressive rape-like attitude; take, force,take.
That is because socialism does not without force. In every single attempt to implement socialism so far, force has been used to mandate compliance. Even here in the US. All socialistic programs now in effect require the implied threat, and sometimes actual use of force.







Originally posted by DruscillaWhat are YOU doing for your community? With a community awareness toward fostering local providence, it doesn't take much by way of contributing to have a visible impact toward the greater prosperity of the whole.
Nothing as such. I don't believe in socialism. I believe in independence, not interdependence. If you want me to believe that group think is so superior to individualism, you will eed to show me some serious proof.



posted on Mar, 27 2013 @ 11:32 AM
link   
reply to post by DarthMuerte
 


I give you examples of voluntary taxation and you call it force as if it's entirely the product of Socialism.

It sounds like you want zero taxation and nothing else is acceptable.
I'm sorry, but, even if you go run off into the bush with a rifle that carries infinite magical ammo, while carrying a seed pouch that carries infinite variety of never-ending seed stock, and you never have to see another human being ever again, you are still going to be taxed.

Death and taxes. Taxes come in more forms than money.
You'll have to work at planting seeds and gathering the results. You'll have to hunt your meat, clean and cure it.
You'll have to build your own shelter and maintain it against the elements.
All of these are time and labor taxes just to survive.
You can't escape taxes.

What you're calling force is an inevitable reality of the cost of survival mitigated through layers of social interdependance through community.
Your stance in that regard as it applies to your over exaggerated reaction in calling a voluntary incentive that one can opt into or out of is thus entirely invalid and without merit.

You get taxed (Forced through redistribution of wealth according to you) more under the current system, than you would under the system I describe.


Enjoy.

Oh, and as to what I do personally, what I action and what I contribute? Already doing, done and did, but, it would seem that some people are lacking in the facility of reading comprehension where one describes such in the previous post in just the community gardening aspect.
Other respects aren't mentioned, but, I need not inventory all the ways I contribute to my community.

edit on 27-3-2013 by Druscilla because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 27 2013 @ 11:48 AM
link   
socialism is for the people, not the socialists.

people want to earn what they own, and own what they earn.

is it natural for me to trade my labor with whom i want, when i want to, for what i want, and need?

or is it natural for my labor to belong to you, your mom, your sister, bob down the street, to demand my labor at your will?

it doesn't work, never has, never will, in any form. it's not natural.

there is no such thing as utopia.
there is no such thing as heaven on earth.
there is no such thing as perfect.


socialism is about power from the top. ABSOLUTE POWER.

you are kidding yourself if you think everyone will go along, and that includes the government which will be required to enforce the law.

even marx and engles said it would never work.

plato said his republic would never work.

why?
because it's not natural.

in my opinion it;s not meant to work when put into practice.
it is meant to enslave you.

there will always be poor people, and there will always be rich people.
no matter what.
there will always be corruption, always.
no person, or group of people is smart enough to create heaven on earth, it is impossible.

capitalism is king.
what happened when true capitalism was practiced in America, up to the early 1900's?
you wouldn't have the computer your typing on right now if it were not for capitalism in America.
yes, everyone knows there are problems with capitalism.
but it is the only system that has brought more people out of poverty the world over.
it has created more wealth than any other system ever in the history of mankind.
a better way of life the world over.
everything you have is a result of capitalism, everything.

why do i even try?
stupid people!!!
can't see past your mothers teat.
edit on 27-3-2013 by bjax9er because: (no reason given)
edit on 27-3-2013 by bjax9er because: (no reason given)
edit on 27-3-2013 by bjax9er because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 27 2013 @ 11:57 AM
link   
Reply to post by DarthMuerte
 


Darth,

Unfortunately, you're not going to get very far with her. Her other leftist commentary in other threads described fantasies of killing people with IQs less than 130 and killing off the males with only a select few remaining that would be used for breeding purposes.

The bottomline is you are trying to be rational with someone who is irrational. How far do you expect to get who somebody who has already embraced purges?


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



posted on Mar, 27 2013 @ 12:21 PM
link   
I'd like to add my thoughts on this topic, as it is Socialism itself that is often misunderstood and misrepresented.

Socialism plays a huge role in our lives, whether we live in a Communist dictatorship or a representative republic. America itself has practiced socialism throughout it's existence and has brought us some great things. For example: Hoover Dam and the American Military.

These examples use the resources and wealth of the nation as a whole to provide for the betterment of the whole and in the case of the military, it is mandated by the Constitution.

Churches are a socialist entity.
Charities are a socialist entity.
Gun clubs are a socialist entity.

I could go on for days.

Socialism is part of our everyday lives, but it is the extreme examples in which socialism is confused with Communism/dictatorships that soil it's reputation.

Socialism, like capitalism, has been drug through the mud by nations that exploit the ideology for their own personal gain.

Socialism was stained by the Communists.

Capitalism was stained by the actions of America (and the rest of the capitalistic world).

Neither system is perfect and relies solely on the morality of the people within the system to keep it in check as to not lead to Communism, or in the case of today's America, fascism.



posted on Mar, 27 2013 @ 12:32 PM
link   
reply to post by GreenGlassDoor
 


You take those points entirely out of context as they were illustrations of fictions painted for demonstrative example not intended as a realistic and actual solution to anything.

It would seem someone needs work on their reading comprehension as it applies to contextual literacy.


In the spirit of Socialism, I offer you 700 FREE online courses from top Universities whereby one, if they have the cognitive facility, may advance themselves (unaccredited). Most classical requisites for an educational foundation are available; History, Physics, Biology, Philosophy, Government, Psychology, Anthropology, Sociology, Mathematics, and more, including concentrations and specializations are on offer, entirely free of cost (other than the time required one's own to learn the materials).

One might then learn the finer points of literacy like reading between the lines, debate-craft, logic and other such.


reply to post by sheepslayer247
 


Thank you Sheepslayer247.
Too often folks hear Socialism, or some other term they've been conditioned, or programmed like little robots to respond to with vitriol, and they react as programmed, without thinking, and without consideration.
They may think they're thinking, but, they're only reacting as programmed.
Often enough, even with details provided, adamantine programmed bias remains as a willful embrace of their own conditioned ignorance.

The classical nuclear family, in a way, is an exercise in natural Socialism where the alignment of social interdependence through mating and genetic blood ties defines the communal institution of "family".


edit on 27-3-2013 by Druscilla because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 27 2013 @ 12:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Druscilla
reply to post by DarthMuerte
 


That's one of the problems so many have developed in bias against a Provident Socialism.
Nothing needs be taken or forced on anyone.

Community incentives would work just fine, especially combined with restructuring the responsibilities, and accountability of leadership.

For instance, myself and several neighbors have community gardens on our respective properties.
We OWN our properties, yet, our gardens are freely available to everyone to share in cultivation and to take what's wanted or needed.
I can, on a whim, level my garden and put up a Zen rock garden for aesthetic purposes only if I wanted to as it's my property, but, what good does that do the community, my neighbors without gardens whom derive enjoyment and pleasure in the occasional attendance and fresh vegetables?

It fosters reciprocity and community incentive on mutual support toward general prosperity.

Public, city owned property could be managed similarly. People wouldn't need be required to cultivate gardens and contribute, but creating incentive for participation through such things as a % break on neighborhood owner's association dues and maintenance, city tax, and other such could create greater participation, all voluntary, and all at zero loss of private ownership.

It's a matter of community participation and mutual support in creating incentives for collectively beneficial social contracts where the overall community prospers as a result.

With private contributory gardening alone, nationwide as community incentives, we'd not have the demographics of hungry we currently have in the nation.

The problem with the current American culture is the inherent selfishness associated with it. An attitude of responsibility toward one's community and caring for its overall prosperity is an entirely foreign concept to most.

It gets boiled down to ME ME ME ME ME, and fear mongering over What is the government going to TAKE from ME ME ME ME now?

I mean, just listen to your own comment above about forcing small businesses to do ... whatever, forcing, taking, forcing, taking. It's such an entirely male aggressive rape-like attitude; take, force,take.

What are YOU doing for your community? With a community awareness toward fostering local providence, it doesn't take much by way of contributing to have a visible impact toward the greater prosperity of the whole.

edit on 27-3-2013 by Druscilla because: (no reason given)


And when people discover they can take all they want from your garden without pitching in? Then more people see that they work to supply vegetables to people who don't pitch in and help cultivate the garden and then decide to stop cultivating the garden if they can take what they want anyway? Then the garden fails because the last guy does not want to grow tomatoes for those who can't be bothered to pick up a hoe? Socialism, although it may seem utopian on the surface, ends up as a nightmare for the workers because all of hte work will fall upon the backs of a smaller and smaller group of people willing to work. At that point, in order to keep people from starving, there is no recourse but to force people to work for their food and your utopia becomes your Orwellian nightmare.

Socialism does not succeed because people are not insects.
edit on 27-3-2013 by NavyDoc because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 27 2013 @ 12:50 PM
link   
reply to post by NavyDoc
 


Certainly. I don't disagree. Every society will have its misfits.
You're not exampling anything that isn't endemic in any system.

The definition of ownership itself is only defined by the willingness of those more powerful and capable of taking something by force to not do so.

Private ownership of anything, including a such things as a mate through marriage, is just an illusion allowed by all those with the power to take it, whatever "it" might be, away by force.

No solution is perfect. There will always be criminals, malcontents, maladjusted, greedy, selfish, warped, and unstable people waiting on the sidelines and fringes to take advantage.

This is where any and every society enacts laws, just as we adhere to right now, enforced by a police and judicial system, just as is done now, all to facilitate social cohesion as a measure against those who care not for anything like playing nice.

You only example a condition that's persistent across all forms of government, in every culture, across the entire history of mankind.

edit on 27-3-2013 by Druscilla because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 27 2013 @ 12:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Druscilla
reply to post by NavyDoc
 


Certainly every society will have its misfits.

The definition of ownership itself is only defined by the willingness of those more powerful and capable of taking something by force to not do so.

Private ownership of anything, including a such things as a mate through marriage, is just an illusion allowed by all those with the power to take it, whatever "it" might be, away by force.

No solution is perfect. There will always be criminals, malcontents, maladjusted, greedy, selfish, warped, and unstable people waiting on the sidelines and fringes to take advantage.

This is where any and every society enacts laws, just as we adhere to right now, enforced by a police and judicial system, just as is done now, all to facilitate social cohesion as a measure against those who care not for anything like playing nice.





Which comes full circle to the concept that socialism leads to coercion. If someone does not want to share or work for the benefit of others, you would empower the state to force him to share. See what a nice utopia we get.





new topics

top topics



 
17
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join