Socialism, Anarchy and Ideal Government

I’m glad to see that you have about the same understanding of socialism as I do. Most people do not understand it at all, like the above poster. Socialism is an ideal. Ideals are just that, ideals. There is no expectation that they will actually be reached, and there are many different ways to work towards that ideal. To me, and most socialists I have met, socialism is the ideal of working towards anarchy. Not anarchy in the sense of no government, but anarchy in the sense of not needing government. This is an important distinction, because it makes living the life of a socialist a good thing for any society. For example, I don’t need a police officer to check the road to make sure I am driving safely, because I do it anyways. I don’t do it because it is the law, and driving safely and obeying the law are not always the same thing, but because it is the “right” thing to do. When you are being considerate to others, and contributing to your community voluntarily you are eliminating the need to actually have a government, and are thus working towards the socialist ideal. You are working towards the ideal of not needing a government because everyone is voluntarily supporting their community.

@Maxo

Actually, I kind of just stumbled on the whole “intermediate step concept”. I hadn’t made that connection before my late night walk last night.

Are you sure we’re synced on that? I’m saying socialism ISN’T an ideal, and that the opposite is, but that socialism enables its opposite.

@Maxo,

I understand what Daniel wrote, and I understand what you wrote: “To me, and most socialists I have met, socialism is the ideal of working towards anarchy. Not anarchy in the sense of no government, but anarchy in the sense of not needing government.”

MY statement that greed is a part of the human condition was meant to be understood to be a statement that I do not believe that we will ever (in our lifetimes … and probably not EVER) reach a point that humanity without government is better overall than humanity WITH government.

I agree completely that humanity as a whole would be better if everyone lived as you do (doing the “right” thing always) and I too try to live up to this ideal. But, I don’t pretend that everyone will ever live like this. Keep in mind that the vast majority of people DO live like this (some of them do so because we have laws .. others do so because they understand that it is the best for humanity as a whole — call it the Golden Rule if you like). But, that small minority that doesn’t behave themselves WITH laws is not going to behave themselves WITHOUT laws. It’s just not going to happen. We will ALWAYS need rules and enforcers of those rules.

What evidence do you have that socialism keeps negative aspects of human behavior in check? Why do human flaws necessitate a “control system”? Are there beneficiaries of socialism? I think not. Anyone that benefits from state handouts only does so at the expense of whomever the state stole from. The state doesn’t produce anything, it can only steal. Any such system set up to regulate humans can only be run by other imperfect humans at the expense of personal liberty. I would argue that socialism exacerbates human flaws and keeps all the wonderful human attributes from flourishing. Most of the world doesn’t have a legacy or tradition of individuality like the West, but that doesn’t mean they need a socialist state to rule over them to lift them out of the darkness, so to speak.

The idea doesn’t lead to peaceful interaction between humans, mainly because it involves one set of “smarter” humans telling another set how to live. If the “dumb” humans don’t cooperate they get killed or thrown in prison. History shows this. Socialism is no path to liberty. If you leave humans to themselves, good things happen. There will still be bad people doing bad things, but a free market will offer better means of protection and minimize the effects of forceful intervention (crime) over time. A socialist state (any state) is a vehicle for bad people to do bad things. In fact it gives them a monopoly to do so.

The argument against socialism and central planning is made much better by Frederic Bastiat in “The Law” or in “Economic Harmonies”. Ludwig von Mises wrote a book called “Socialism”, but I haven’t read it yet. “Human Action” is highly recommended.

oh, and for passersby…anarchy means no state, not no law. Private law enforcement and judges would do a better job at protecting you than the state monopoly does now. Checkout “Chaos Theory” by Robert Murphy or “Democracy: the God that Failed” by Hoppe. Also, “For a New Liberty” by Rothbard is good.

@ Daniel

Maybe we are on two different pages. I’ve always looked at socialism as an ideal. The usual argument against socialism is that it could never work. I think that argument is invalid because it misses the point, and it usually end with the conclusion, “…so we should never try.” But maybe you are right. Socialism may be action to work towards the unachievable realism of anarchy. …

@ Carl

I took your comment to be the typical response towards socialism, humans are greedy, always will be, so we might as well give up on getting along and use the Social Darwinistic ideal of survival of the fittest, man benefits the most if he fights each other for his own personal gain and the best man wins. Most socialists realize that we will never “just get along”, but are committed to fighting those who work to make sure we aren’t just getting along.

To me, the right balance is a fair playing field where the only obstacle to success is yourself. When artificial factors inhibit success, our society loses great people to oppression. How many geniuses go on to push drugs because they were born in to the wrong family, went to the wrong schools, and where constantly belittled and shot down by those who looked at him/her and told them they where a loser?

So I’ve thought about it and would like to offer some clarification on my views. Anarchy, as it relates to government, simply means the lack of government. It doesn’t have any specific meaning beyond that. It doesn’t mean people do or don’t get along. Socialism is not specific either. It only means that in general people need to work together for the common good. There are many ways to accomplish that. You can do it through a totalitarian state like most implementations of communism. You could do it through a representative democracy, where people elect officials to decide what is best for the public, like we do. It could also exist in a Utopian anarchy, like we have been discussing. Most people I have met that describe themselves as socialists would like to see the third version.

bjyx aqjprm evmb eahoxpzkb btixe hwgolyipb mecudapz

Well this explains why you are for Obama… and should never have Ron Paul’s face anyplace on your blog..

UGH

your blog is really great! 587

Daniel,

As I suggested in another comment, I have to disagree with you. Socialism has no place in any society. If you need proof of this, please look at the fall of the USSR. Remember that it stands for the Union of Soviet SOCIALIST Republics. All it ever did was plunder the people for the gain of a very small group. Not really that different from the feudal system. The only style of governement that will ever succeed in justice is Libertarianism from a Rights Theorist vantage point.

Government should not be in the business of wealth or power redistribution. The only function of government is for providing physical infrastructure for the society and protecting everyone's rights. Providing for the poor and down trodden is the work of charity.

The thing that bothers me the most about “free thinking” individuals is that they do not see the human want and need to help each other. Most people care about others. They even care about the goowill of those they do not even know. Where we have failed is in believing what the few loud-mouths are barking at us: “If you do not guard your heart, everything will be taken from you.” The irony is those preaching this are the ones taking it.

My philosophy is to love others until they give you a reason not to trust them, then love them still but do not let them take your hope and joy. you will still have to guard your heart, but only from those who truthfully want to harm you. If this was everyone's goal, we would have no need for this discussion.

What you've written here is the most illogical and ill thought out piece of rubbish that I've read since the Old Testament. Socialism is maximization of the state, maximization of regulation, of the majority dictating to the individual, essentially of the tyranny of the majority OVER the individual. And socialism is NEVER going to give way to a reduction of the state; it will struggle to survive and grow even larger and more intrusive and more controlling. In what way will this lead to anarchy? Socialism and anarchy are antithetical. Those in power never relinquish power. Government always grows; it never shrinks. They are two opposite ends of the spectrum. Socialism and anarchy are only used in the same sentence by young kids who have never owned anything and resent anybody who has more than they do. They don't want rules or regulations for THEMSELVES, but to have a massive SOCIALIST STATE that takes from others and gives to them is okay. That is where the concept of socialist anarchy comes from. It's freedom for me, but not for anybody who has more than what I have. Get your head out of your ass!!!

I think you are working with an extreme view of libertarianism. Most libertarians favor a government with a limited presence. Your use of the term libertarian here seem to indicate the need/want to abolish the government which really isn't the case. It's not that cut and dry.

anarchy is the opposite of socialism. and it smells worse. anyone i know that calls themselves an anarchist is failing on all these levels. so quick to jump to the end result! humans arent decent. starbucks is anarchy on a grand scale. you want to be stepping over even more bums and get stabbed for your shoes you can do it now! that anarchy exists every night in the city streets already. it does not work. period. treat everyone with the respect you deserve. smashing windows out of small businesses is naive and counters these 'ideals' sloppily scribbled (and misspelled) all over my neighborhood SMALL PRIVATELY OWNED BUSINESSES! i love the stupid 'vegan anarchy' graffiti too. really really fucking up the system. HUMANS WILL NEVER BE DECENT UNTIL THEY HAVE A REASON TO BE. if a kid has no hope of ever knowing what its like to own their own home they are so willing to stomp my flower beds every chance they get for the fuck of it.

Fair enough; I don't either. So all you do is stop when you reach the appropriate balance of centralized and decentralized control.

Fair enough; I don't either. So all you do is stop when you reach the appropriate balance of centralized and decentralized control.