By the way, why do you feel the need to enter a conversation that was intended to be a debate among socialists about socialist theory? The idea was to discuss paths to socialism, degrees of socialism etc., not the validity of the ideology itself.
I was just being a good neighbor. The road to socialism goes up yonder and around a bend and at that point the bridge is out. I just thought it would be useful for you to know. The road to socialism leads nowhere.
ruveyn
Actually the road and the bridge itself is provided by the elements of socialism that have existed as long as taxes have been collected to pay for them, in the US.
Without the socialist elements of the United States Economy there would be few roads, bridges, schools, and little military, law enforcement, or fire protection to defend the elements of free enterprise that exists.
Most owe their limited freedoms to the socialist elements of our economy. Whether it is the education of the nation, protection from those that would rob us next door or invade us from another nation, control of the fire next door before it burns our home down, or the road that travels to the grocery store for basic subsistence.
Whereever taxes are required for government services provided at no charge to the public, there is socialism.
No family can pay for it on their own, and some families are not required to support it through some forms of taxation, but most everyone is dependent upon the socialist elements of the mixed economy in the US, that has socialist and capitalistic elements.
There are people that are willing to give up the opportunity for others to be provided health care at taxpayer expense, however not many are willing to give up their roads, or bridges. Starvation would result if they were not made available free by the socialist elements of the government.
Per statistics a healthy society is measured by how well governments provide resources to their citizens for subsistence. In the US the political system, allows voters the opportunity where to draw that line. Some of the socialist elements have grown weaker in the last several decades and some are growing stronger. It's a balance that has worked fairly well so far; however it is questionable if that balance can or will be maintained.
By the way, why do you feel the need to enter a conversation that was intended to be a debate among socialists about socialist theory? The idea was to discuss paths to socialism, degrees of socialism etc., not the validity of the ideology itself.
I was just being a good neighbor. The road to socialism goes up yonder and around a bend and at that point the bridge is out. I just thought it would be useful for you to know. The road to socialism leads nowhere.
ruveyn
Really? Last time I checked no one had looked past the bend yet. I at least intend to take a peak for myself. (Also note, this is one reason that I advocate reform over revolution. If the bridge is out then at least reform gives us enough time to turn around, rather go careening into the river with a revolution).
Quote:
I live for myself (and my family). You should do the same.
Oohhh! I'm supposed to live my life based on a principle that would not make me happy! (And believe it or not it wouldn't because I derive some happiness from knowing that the world is a better place for my having been in it). Why on earth did I never consider turning to libertarianism before?
By your own logic, since doing what little I can to fight for socialism and social justice makes me feel good about myself, I shouldn't change a bit.
By your own logic, since doing what little I can to fight for socialism and social justice makes me feel good about myself, I shouldn't change a bit.
Let me put a hypothetical to you. Suppose your kid and the neighbor's kid is drowning. You can only save one. Which one would you save?
Ah! I thought so. You are just as selfish as the rest of us.
ruveyn
And how is that incompatible with socialism? In most situation one can ensure the welfare of one's own child without harming, and perhaps even while helping, the welfare of another's child. That particular argument of yours has never made much sense to me. In any case, that hardly disqualifies my original point. If I extract pleasure from helping people then, by your logic, I should help do so even if that means inconveniencing (for instance, by advocating the tyranny of government) others who are better off, including myself. I can hardly claim to be perfect, but I would not be satisfied with my life if I lived purely to serve my own interests.
Also, as you must surely be aware, a sample of one question can hardly be used to define my selfishness relative to the rest of humanity. Everyone would answer that question as I did. But there are other questions that might be answered differently. For instance, I support the welfare state even though I don't intend to ever be on welfare. And I don't have a problem with tax dollars being spent on the arts, even though I'm not personally a fan of most art. I recycle and compost mostly because it is good for the planet, although it takes extra time and effort on my part. In fact, I feel guilty if I'm on vacation and can't recycle/compost. I've resolved to take the older food at the grocery store (so long as I think I can finish it before it goes bad) so as to try to reduce how much unsold merchandise is thrown out. When something needs to be done (for instance, cleaning up after a party) I volunteer to help. I believe in socialism despite the fact that my upper-middle class upbringing, with its associated perks, was derived from my dad owning a medium sized business. I refuse to sabotage someone else's prospects so that I might get ahead. And at the very least I am critical of myself and my actions, which is more than can be said for most people.
By your own logic, since doing what little I can to fight for socialism and social justice makes me feel good about myself, I shouldn't change a bit.
Let me put a hypothetical to you. Suppose your kid and the neighbor's kid is drowning. You can only save one. Which one would you save?
Ah! I thought so. You are just as selfish as the rest of us.
ruveyn
Darling, selfishness is not a qualitative value. It's quantitative, and just because one would choose to save one's own child first does not mean that one wouldn't then do one's best for the other child - many could jump into a rushing river to save the second child once the first one is free, even if there was very little hope of the second one having survived that long.
Joined: Jun 29, 2010 Age: 24 Posts: 76 Location: Liverpool, UK
Posted: Wed May 09, 2012 6:18 pm Post subject:
It concerns me how many people I know who have apparently accepted this crude individualistic view of the world. To not just suggest that we should only care about ourselves, but also to accept this as the way things should be and the only way they have ever been. They act as if free will is the ability to do anything you want; that you can rise out of squalor if you just work hard and that there are no forms of control besides that which they exert on themselves. It's a simplistic view that clearly disregards the reality that any individual is subservient to what society has made of them. Living on a rough council estate for most of my life, having parents with mental health problems and being afraid to go out for fear of being attacked is enough to destroy the myth of social mobility as anything but an exception to the rule (and statistics will show you the same).
I'm too tired for this serious posting business right now though so instead of typing a lot more words I'll listen to this
Joined: Jun 29, 2010 Age: 24 Posts: 76 Location: Liverpool, UK
Posted: Wed May 09, 2012 6:43 pm Post subject:
I think people in this thread will recognise that I'm not some sort of Stalinist because I referred to the Soviet Union. Anybody who doesn't realise that can be purged later.
There is a difference between not caring about someone at all and caring less about them than about someone else.
To be honest, I believe than family is the basis of almost all inequalities. It is just too strong an institution to be destroyed.
Kinship attachment is genetically wired into humans. It is very hard to override or cancel out.
ruveyn
Well, then I'll never be in the situation you describe. I'm gay and if I have children they'll be adopted. So I have no genetic reason to act as you say. (I'm not being serious here. But since there would be no Darwinian reason for me to rescue my child at all it would show a degree of selflessness to put myself in that dangerous situation).
I think people in this thread will recognise that I'm not some sort of Stalinist because I referred to the Soviet Union. Anybody who doesn't realise that can be purged later.
I actually didn't assume that. I figured that the anthem (which I didn't actually listen to, I admit) would be one of those idealistic things that sounds great that was never actually lived by (like the various Soviet constitutions). Just from a purely strategic view I think that it is unwise for people on the left to speak of the Soviet Union with anything other than criticism or an explanation for why it ended up as it did.
Joined: Sep 22, 2008 Age: 76 Posts: 29706 Location: New Jersey
Posted: Wed May 09, 2012 9:51 pm Post subject:
AstroGeek wrote:
Well, then I'll never be in the situation you describe. I'm gay and if I have children they'll be adopted. So I have no genetic reason to act as you say. (I'm not being serious here. But since there would be no Darwinian reason for me to rescue my child at all it would show a degree of selflessness to put myself in that dangerous situation).
Do you have siblings for whom you care. Or nieces or nephews for whom you care? Or cousins for whom you care? None of these kin attachments require heterosexual preference.
Most likely children of your own flesh and blood are not likely but the other kin attachments I described can be operative.
Well, then I'll never be in the situation you describe. I'm gay and if I have children they'll be adopted. So I have no genetic reason to act as you say. (I'm not being serious here. But since there would be no Darwinian reason for me to rescue my child at all it would show a degree of selflessness to put myself in that dangerous situation).
Do you have siblings for whom you care. Or nieces or nephews for whom you care? Or cousins for whom you care? None of these kin attachments require heterosexual preference.
Most likely children of your own flesh and blood are not likely but the other kin attachments I described can be operative.
ruveyn
I'd be more likely to save an adopted child than the other relations that you list.
