Socialism, contrary to liberalism (not: liberal as in American politics, but the political ideology that strives for lesser government interference and a free market economy*) has a 'negative' human identity, as it always presumes that when a human is left alone unbounded by rules it will take advantage of society in every way it can without suffering from immediate physical or social backlash. Liberalism on the other hand has a 'positive' human identity, as it always presumes that people are inherently friendly and don't actually need to be bounded by rules, as it's natural feeling for moral responsibility will prevent it from taking advantage. For example, socialism believes that solidarity should be a government task and thus obligatory through taxes, because if you'd make solidarity 'optional', you would have the free-rider problem: people would initially give money to the poor on a voluntary base but would give that up eventually because they'd figure they could use the money more to get a blow-job downtown or buy a new iPad instead. Liberalism on the other hand believes that even if solidarity is optional, people would still choose to donate money, even if they aren't bounded by government rules, because the need to help the weaker is an inherent part of the human identity. I don't believe in the liberal ideology. I believe in the socialist ideology. The liberal ideology seems unrealistic. Homo homini lupus est. DISCUSS. * for all my confused American compatriots: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism
Yes, Liberalism is a silly concept. Laissez faire economic and social policy can only work in small economic regions, like Hong Kong (pre-1997) and Singapore.
Advocates of social control seem to imagine themselves as much smarter than the masses. In my experience, the opposite is true.
Since I'm probably the only one who actually bothered to read that, I'll highlight the most important paragraph:
The only way I can see socialism properly functioning is if money is abolished. Socialism is simply centralised feudalism. Except that feudalists were much more efficient. Perhaps because they were decentralised and ended up having to embrace a de facto market? But that's what decentralised socialism is: feudalism.
Also, socialists don't know (understand or comprehend) the difference between government and society so self-confessed socialists really shouldn't be listened to.
It's really, really funny listening to them harp about how evil the state and all governments are, then propose strict limitations on behavior which are determined and maintained by "society".
You are mixing up socialism with communism. Socialism is a political ideology that's situated in a liberal free market economy using the moral principles of communism, though never being communism itself. It's kinda like libertarianism and liberalism, can't compare those two.
No, socialism is the total accumulation of power and property for its own sake. Communism is syndicalist anarchy.
Communism is not a syndicalist anarchy in its ultimate form. How can there be syndicates if all classes (including working class) is abolished and thus the workers don't need syndicates any more to protect their interests from greedy corporate bosses?
Therein lies the bullshit. Though, I think I should point out, syndicalism is when the "means of production" is under the control of decentralised labour unions.
As an economic and state system on itself, yes, but that is another thing. I'm talking about the unions organizing labour (strikes etc.).
Labour unions don't exist to protect workers from from "greedy corporate bosses" but to establish a coercive power base within the service sector. They're cartels, you see. But instead of artificially raising the price of goods, they artificially raise the price of services. In order to benefit a few individuals. At the cost of society.
.jpg)
