Alliance with socialists?

Ego:

I can't speak for anyone else, but I've never met a self-described socialist who didn't want to force it upon others.

One of the first things I say to socialists is, "Could anyone choose to opt-out of your plans?" and I've never received a "no".

 

Then you've never met a voluntaryist socialist. They do exist.

Brainpolice:

Ego:

I can't speak for anyone else, but I've never met a self-described socialist who didn't want to force it upon others.

One of the first things I say to socialists is, "Could anyone choose to opt-out of your plans?" and I've never received a "no".

 

Then you've never met a voluntaryist socialist. They do exist. 

 

Capitalism is private ownership of the means of production.  Socialism is public ownership of the means of production.  There is no such thing as a "voluntary socialist," because they know damn well if they insert an opt-out clause, their little Ponzi schemes promptly collapse.

Communism is collective ownership of the means of production.  Families and religious orders are examples of successful forms of collective ownership.  The glue of familial love and religious faith incentivizes net production with a safety net for those waylaid by sickness or bad luck.  Of course, most communists are militantly hostile to the pre-state institutions of family and faith, and instead pledge their loyalty to the atheist state, meaning they're basically socialists.

Socialism is premised on the labor theory of value.  You may as well argue for an alliance with lunatics.

Ego:

Stranger, socialists want to control other people. Socialists aren't happy with capitalism, and they wouldn't be happy if that is the result.

Then leave that choice up to them.

Leave what chocie up to them? The choice not to be happy?

That really doesn't make much sense; you will ally with them and expect them to accept being "not happy" when we don't implement their controlling ideas?

Ego:

Leave what chocie up to them? The choice not to be happy?

That really doesn't make much sense; you will ally with them and expect them to accept being "not happy" when we don't implement their controlling ideas?

 

Why assume that the only way to implement worker-oriented organization is to force people into it? Is it not possible for people to voluntarily form into such forms of organization, in free competition with other forms of organization? We often talk in terms of competition between buisinesses, but what about a more broad free competition between economic systems or buisiness models?

 

Interesting that you mentioned that, I once toyed with calling myself a "voluntary socialist" just so I could steal their word. Anyways...

Do voluntary socialists identify themselves as socialists or capitalists? In reality, they are capitalists, so I don't see why they would call themselves socialists. That word is used to describe a political philosophy, not a personal-money-spending philosophy. Should I call myself a Powerbar-ist because I choose to spend money on protein bars?

And how do these people vote? If they vote for left-wing candidates, they aren't "voluntary" socialists.

If any significant number of socialists would be happy with voluntary programs and voluntary association, they wouldn't vote for left-wing candidates, they'd vote for capitalists/libertarian candidates. You are giving these people way too much credit.

You're falling into collectivist reasoning there. Just because someone calls themselves "socialist" doesn't mean that they are state-socialists. Most are; some aren't. One should judge others by their invididual character and actions, not by what others like them within a very broad group do and believe.

I'm afraid voluntary socialists are a very scarce resource. On the other hand, if you want a devastating critique of Herr Marx, here's one by another socialist....

Marxism Freedom and the State -
http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/anarchist_archives/bakunin/marxnfree.html#chap1

I think we need to differentiate between the ends and means of a socialist. The socialist has ends that are not diametrically opposed to those of the libertarian. The difference is on the means. The socialist critique of capitalism holds only when addressed to "predatory capitalism" or corporatism. The problem is that the socialist fails to realize that. The libertarian, on the other hand, fails to realize that Marx opposed welfare plans and redistribution of wealth. By the way, I'm not an agorist, so I can't give an agorist answer. My answer is that it is easier to ally with someone who opposes you on means than on ends. Also, libertarians are too few to exert much actual power in the short term - that is, our alliances are not alliances through which we will be likely to change policy. Instead, an alliance should be seen in terms of "who can we learn from, and, especially, what groups contain people we can hope to convince of libertarianism?"

From my encounters with leftists of all flavors, both in real life and on message boards like this one, any and everyone who described his/herself as "socialist" or "democratic socialist", etc. wanted to make it mandatory. I have met capitalists who love the idea of living in communes, but those people describe themselves as capitalists.

Describing yourself as "socialist" is silly when you're actually a capitalist. Like I mentioned in my previous post, should I describe my political philosophy in terms of who I want to spend my own money?

Of these socialists that you've met, who do they vote for?

Ego:

If any significant number of socialists would be happy with voluntary programs and voluntary association, they wouldn't vote for left-wing candidates, they'd vote for capitalists/libertarian candidates. You are giving these people way too much credit.

 

I believe that we're talking past eachother because we're refering to different ideas and people. Our definitions of our terms or the context of their usage is different. When I take a neutral stance on "socialism", I'm not refering to state-socialists. I'm refering to elements of the anarchist movement such as mutualism and individualist anarchism that could be considered "socialist" in a certain context. A voluntary one. The people I'm refering to probably don't vote. And they're individualistic enough to recognize the right of the individual to secede from social combinations and organizations.

My posts aren't going through today... this is a repost. If the other one posts too, I'll try to delete it.

From my encounters with leftists of all flavors, both in real life and on message boards like this one, any and everyone who described his/herself as "socialist" or "democratic socialist", etc. wanted to make it mandatory. I have met capitalists who love the idea of living in communes, but those people describe themselves as capitalists.

Describing yourself as "socialist" is silly when you're actually a capitalist. Like I mentioned in my previous post, should I describe my political philosophy in terms of who I want to spend my own money?

Of these socialists that you've met, who do they vote for?

[This is my third attempt at posting this, sorry if the others eventually appear]

From my encounters with leftists of all flavors, both in real life and on message boards like this one, any and everyone who described his/herself as "socialist" or "democratic socialist", etc. wanted to make it mandatory. I have met capitalists who love the idea of living in communes, but those people describe themselves as capitalists.

Describing yourself as "socialist" is silly when you're actually a capitalist. Like I mentioned in my previous post, should I describe my political philosophy in terms of who I want to spend my own money?

Of these socialists that you've met, who do they vote for?

In my understanding, the principle of voluntaryism is neutral to personal preferance. One could voluntarily form into a commune, a union or a buisiness "democratically" run by workers. One could voluntarily go live as a hermit or primitivist. One could voluntarily form private defense and arbitration organizations. One could voluntarily form into ethnically homogenous communities (although I am skeptical as to how sustainable this can be). So long as the organizational method is voluntary, it is theoretically possible in a free society.

The libertarian, on the other hand, fails to realize that Marx opposed welfare plans and redistribution of wealth.

Not true. He was just a third rate demagogue who didn't get the ABC of economics. The so called manifesto is pure interventionism.

I can get along with pretty much anyone that doesn't have a gun to my head. I know I share some common views with socialists. But the problem is in the definition of who is a socialist. A true socialist is working on a system that they believe will bring down the government and bring about communism. I see the differences as more of a moral question and not so much a difference in the sovereignty of the individual. A good example is an analogy a socialist friend of mine brought up.

Two men are walking through a desert and one of them has a hole in his canteen that he doesn't know about. When he asks the other man for a drink he is told "No." Although I think it would be in his best interest to share the water, I don't feel he has a moral obligation too. I don't think that is an act of aggression. The socialist on the other hand feels that the man with water has a monopoly on a needed resource and that refusing to give the first man a drink IS an act of aggression.

Both of us can see the validity of the others argument up to this point. Where we will always bump heads is on what the waterless man can do to get water.

[none of my posts are going through today]

MacFall:

From my encounters with leftists of all flavors, both in real life and on message boards like this one, any and everyone who described his/herself as "socialist" or "democratic socialist", etc. wanted to make it mandatory. I have met capitalists who love the idea of living in communes, but those people describe themselves as capitalists.

Describing yourself as "socialist" is silly when you're actually a capitalist. Like I mentioned in my previous post, should I describe my political philosophy in terms of who I want to spend my own money?

Of these socialists that you've met, who do they vote for?

JAlanKatz:,

Could you explain why you think leftists want the same things as capitalists? Look at any policy a leftist wants (ANY of them):

Social security? That's capitalist.
Progressive tax rates? That's capitalist.
Wage and price controls? That's capitalist.

Even when they get it right, they get it wrong. They want to legalize drugs? Yes, but they want to heavily tax and regulate them. They want open borders? Sometimes, but they want to provide welfare and government services to anyone who comes across.

Basically, everything they do criminally generates perpetual votes and makes the "compassionate" leftist look like a hero. How convienient! Bring people over from other countries, bribe them with money stolen from political opponents, and of course they'll vote for you! Same with progressive taxes. Tax the masses at a lower rate than the evil rich, and cry "CLASS WARFARE" when someone tries to flatten the top rates!

How how can you possibly think Marx opposed distrubuting wealth? "From each according to their ability, to each according to their need."

I honestly have no idea what you mean. Unless you meant something warm-and-fuzzy like "leftists want a better world", but so do fascists, and so does nearly everyone.

IrishOutlaw:

I can get along with pretty much anyone that doesn't have a gun to my head. I know I share some common views with socialists. But the problem is in the definition of who is a socialist. A true socialist is working on a system that they believe will bring down the government and bring about communism. I see the differences as more of a moral question and not so much a difference in the sovereignty of the individual. A good example is an analogy a socialist friend of mine brought up.

Two men are walking through a desert and one of them has a hole in his canteen that he doesn't know about. When he asks the other man for a drink he is told "No." Although I think it would be in his best interest to share the water, I don't feel he has a moral obligation too. I don't think that is an act of aggression. The socialist on the other hand feels that the man with water has a monopoly on a needed resource and that refusing to give the first man a drink IS an act of aggression.

Both of us can see the validity of the others argument up to this point. Where we will always bump heads is on what the waterless man can do to get water.

 

You don't beleive the capitalism vs socialism debate is about the sovereignty of the individual? Really? A system that will allow the masses to take your money isn't a violation of the sovereignty of the individual?

Ego:

You don't beleive the capitalism vs socialism debate is about the sovereignty of the individual? Really? A system that will allow the masses to take your money isn't a violation of the sovereignty of the individual?

The debate is not one of capitalism vs socialism. The true dichotomy is between voluntarism and coercion.

Watch this Walter Block speech (starting at 24:00). As he says, even the american family lives according to the Marxist notion of 'From each according to his ability, to each according to his need'. A free market includes all voluntary acts, whether of wealth redistribution or capital accumulation. All that matters is that they are voluntary.