Stateless socialism is a contradiction in terms. Communism is collective ownership of the means of production. Socialism is state ownership of the means of production.
To you, yes, but in discussions I’ve had with other’s, many use the term as a adjective for what would more or less be the free-market under anarchism (in their view, at least), which I suppose would make sense in a way, if each individual owned the means of production, & there ceased to be a state.
That would be communism. Where are they getting their terminology from?
If the question had been about the belief that everyone should earn the same income would your reply have been the same?
How are the two the same?
Both are ethical principles?
The action axiom is an ethical principle?
Yes (or rather, I’d ask for a demonstration as to why it is axiomatic in the first place.) And I don’t see how belief in an axiom is akin to religious faith (assuming the NAP is an axiom to begin with.) An axiom to my knowledge is not exempt from being true or false.
-Jon
I am unsure, but I’m guessing their use of terminology is the result to either remnants of Leftist ideas, or their dual adherence to such, in concert of their supposed anarchistic ideas.
While such conversations tend to go nowhere, I was relieved I was able to have an intelligent conversation at all when I realized how they were using their terminology.
In the above statement, if you replaced the words atheist with any religion and communism with government, we would be in complete agreement. The problem is always caused by centralizing power in a few hands; the religion or atheism behind it is window dressing.
I think we all know that’s just a smokescreen.
Absolutely. Attempting the atheism/communism link is clearly an ad hominem fallacy called poisoning the well.
That’s self-contradictory.
-
There is some good to religion. Religion has helped many people find human peace, it has helped form communities, etc.
-
Religion has harmed the human race. Holy wars and persecutions come to mind.
-
Bill Maher is an idiot.
I realize, but some do use the term as if it isn’t contradictory, even if someone offers a more correct term to describe whatever “stateless socialism” is supposed to describe.
-
I’m a legitimate private owner of something.
-
I establish a policy in which there is worker’s self-management or I voluntarily grant the workers a share in the means of production or a generally open policy in terms of access to my property.
-
Viola, stateless socialism.
Is it an efficient buisiness model? No. Is it consistant with property rights? Yes.
Yea, I think it hit a wall in said discussion with those advocating “statless socialism” when it came to propterty rights (if I remember correctly, they kept objecting to private property itself). I will try offering this next time & see what happens.
How do leftist “anarchists” justify anarchism without property rights?
I think there is a lot of good to religion; though I can only speak for Christianity because I am not familiar with the other ones (I am a Catholic). Jesus Christ, our savior, has taught us not to kill and steal, to forigve, and above all to love. Frequently in the Bible the ten commandments are sumamrized as “Love thy neighbor as thyself”. Nobody is perfect, everybody is a sinner, but if we have faith and do our best to love everybody as we would ourselves then I think there is an enormous amount of good with religion.
It is unfortunate that many people twist religion for their own purposes which usually are contrary to what the religion in question teaches. Though I am not familair with Islam, I’m sure that their doctrine has been distorted in order to do bad things, just as people try to do this with Christianity as well. Somebody made a great point that Jesus Christ appeared to be against human government and there are a multitude of passages in the Bible supporting this. There is actually an excellent website explaining why Jesus Christ and the Bible support an anti-state and anti-war approach to life: http://www.harmlessasdoves.com/ - God bless.
In liberty,
Chris
No, since you still own it. You haven’t socialized the ownership; you’re merely allowing them more use.