Is it possible to possess socialist principles while executing economics like an anarchist?
Well define what you mean by ‘anarchist’
Better yet, define what you mean by socialist principles
Define ‘Is’, please.
Poppycock! These are fair questions.
Socialist principles: humanity, fraternity, etc. Non-individualistic ambition
Anarchist: One who supports anarchy; one who acts without supervision of a compulsory System of Action
Is: the equal sign
[:P]
Well we preach fraternity here…well an implied fraternity.
I think one can be a mutualist. An anarchist who supports ‘non-compulsory’ socialism. Its possible but not very consistent.
These are not socialist principles. socialist principles are; envy, ignorance,parasitism, war, poverty, and that jews are bad.
(God how I hate the burden of proof. The smallest hole poked in my claim makes me look like a fool and kills my credibility. >
)
So you’re saying non-compulsory socialism relies on those to just contribute without gain? That would be extremely inconsistent.
I suppose there may be a matter of degree involved. As an example China, being a socialist nation, seems to be exhibiting very free market tendencies lately. Even to the point of advocating that their citizens invest in gold. Something that most socialist regimes would find a threatening idea. As a culture they are simply fascinating. I would think that a Laissez-faire approach to economics would ultimately prove too threatening to socialist principles for the two to continue to coexist. A move to one extreme or the other would probably result. Such moves are often frought with conflict both on the individuals intellectual principles as well as an institutional power structure level.
Well, I never!
Don’t forget…every socialist has a white Persian cat and a scar along their face. They are simply diabolical.
Can it be agreed upon that anarcho-capitalism promotes personal gain? Then can it be concluded that anarcho-capitalism promotes individualist principles? Then can it be concluded that individualist ambitions squander humanity, as helping others cuts into personal profits?
Can it be agreed upon that socialism promotes societal gain? Then can it be concluded that socialism promotes societal principles? Then can it be concluded that societal principles lead to compulsory action for every citizen, therefore killing liberty?
Not at all. Profits are not simply monetary numbers.
People can engage in voluntary socialism.
you can tell i woke up in a bad mood today.
yup
no. if individuals place helping others high on their value scales, they receive profits when they expend their means to achieve this just as when they have luxury condo’s on their value scales and they profit from expending less valued means to achieve that end.
no, socialism which is public ownership of the means of production destroys the very fabric of society, which is a collaborative venture, it is competition in serving ones fellow man. the division of labour incentivises people to help each other, helping each other is the way to be helped. when you get paid, that is your thanks, feel free to use that for what you want, you deserve it for having helped people.
the invisible hand coordinates peoples disparate plans, even people who don’t care for each other, in order to help themselves, must add value to the lives of others, in order to reap the benefits of the capitalist economy.
societal gain, is the gain of individuals in the ‘society’, it is not something apart from this. socialism undermines society simply because it undermines individuals.
free market ideology is truly a societal principle, the socialist principle does however lead to what you say therefore killing liberty.
Just because Socialists write about society and have Social in the first half of their BrandName, does not mean that they have a superior claim to the concept of society and related concepts. society is the collection of people involved in the market process. the collection of people who do not participate in the division of labour, are either isolated individuals, miserably self sufficient, i.e. not a society, or a set of people at war over resources.
Also the principles of virtually every other humanitarian creed out there. (Not that I regard socialism as humanitarian–serious question, how are those ‘socialist’ principles as opposed to, say, the principles of the Rotary Club/Buddhism/Scottish Rite Masonry, etc.?)
The distinguishing feature of socialism is public ownership of the means of production, so the answer is no.
I’d like a reference to a socialist saying anything positive about humanity.
Sometimes, for an individual to gain the most, it is necessary to work with others. And, when a person makes a trade with another person, both people do it because they are profiting. In these senses, capitalism promotes the very principles you are ascribing to socialist philosophy.
No, because they have to come at the expense of certain individuals. You can preach that socialism promotes the “commune”, but you have to come to the realization that what this really means is that some people will be benefited, while others pay for it. It’s all a façade.