i used to ask a lot of teachers and they answered the general cliches. socialism is the abolitin of prices, global syndication, abolition of property. yet no one explained to me the difference between that and other market exchanges. after all mutualist theory proves that you can have prices in a socialized system, muddling up the issue at hand.
what is voluntary socialism? i just join a union and they pay me in french fries and flue shots. the paradox is that orthodox socialism deems property as illigitemate, but a voluntary socialist arrangment is itself a implicit respect of it. seems as though you cant have legal slavery, as slavery is distinguished by kidnapping and you cant have "real" socialism (as descriped by marxist types) unless the property is expropriated. my point is that simply socialization of capital doesnt negate the market, which makes so called voluntary socialism socialized free market. in the words of marx- communism is abolition of private property. which begs the question as to what abolition is.
as u can see im confused, brainpolice to my rescue.
garegin:i used to ask a lot of teachers and they answered the general cliches. socialism is the abolitin of prices, global syndication, abolition of property. yet no one explained to me the difference between that and other market exchanges. after all mutualist theory proves that you can have prices in a socialized system, muddling up the issue at hand.
Socialism can mean a lot of things depending on who you ask. "Socialism" could be "Marxism", "Social Democracy", "libertarian socialism" etc.
And as for prices in a socialised system...Mises' problem of economic calculation, anyone?
garegin:what is voluntary socialism?
In a free market, where all actions are voluntary then I guess you can have "voluntary socialism". You can freely give your money away to someone else who will do their very best to take care of you. This for me is the only definition of "voluntary socialism", otherwise it's an oxymoron.
garegin: my point is that simply socialization of capital doesnt negate the market, which makes so called voluntary socialism socialized free market.
I suppose this is somewhat true as market socialism proves, although this branch of socialism still collapses in on itself in the end, like any other brand of socialism.
Irish Liberty Forum
Voluntary socialism (as possibly manifested in voluntary cooperatives, voluntary unions, voluntary charity, voluntary commons, etc.) is just one possible form of organization in a free and polycentric society. All that's required is free entry and exit, and it's part of the market anyways in a broad sense, in free competition with any other voluntary form of organization. In a sense it does inherently have to respect property rights in order to allow genuine competition, although it's not usually thought of with the same terminology.
dont explain it to me like a libertarian, explain it to like a libertarian-syndicalist. i think the issue here is the moral outlook between libertatians and socialists. libertarians concede that both are free choices, socialists think that private means of productions is EVIL but want people to denounce that evil voluntarily.
i see that many people are quite versed the other side's ideas. please enlighten as what the so-called voluntary syndicalist according to them mean. i also see that socialists play word games with ownership, property and use
I am afraid that Voluntary Socialism is a contradiction in terms, an oxymoron.
Remnant: garegin:what is voluntary socialism? I am afraid that Voluntary Socialism is a contradiction in terms, an oxymoron.
I thought this myself for a long time, until I actually became more aquinted with anarchist tradition. You're incorrect. A bunch of people who agree with eachother get together and voluntarily form into a commune or a union. That's voluntary socialism. Nothing contradictary about it whatsoever. "Socialism" does not necessarily refer to the political system of state ownership of the means of production.
Even Walter Block, who is not known for being some kind of loony lefty or whatever, recognizes this to some degree. He recognizes small-scale voluntary socialism and voluntary unions.
One of my favorite quotes may help define the term voluntary socialism:
"The difference between libertarianism and socialism is that libertarians will tolerate the existence of a socialist community, but socialists can’t tolerate a libertarian community" – David D. Boaz (1997)
Libertarianism just means the individual is free to live, free to exchange, and free to entrer/exit. Inherent in the freedoms is voluntarily being part of socialistic community.
Socialism is the forfeital of personal choice as a result of being a member of some society. For example, if your employer buys you health insurance instead of paying you the money equivalent in cost, then it has chosen your health insurance for you even if all you want is labor income.
Voluntary socialism, in that sense, is voluntarily joining a society that makes all of your choices.
Possibly the most socialist society there exists is the military. Once someone joins the military, he is provided with food, housing, transportation, and even told what to wear.
Microsecession as a strategy for revolution | Challenge to minarchist | How would a private road system work?
what is the nature of these voluntary socialist communities. i know there are some varieties- council communism, mutualism, syndicates. please elaborate as to how the property is managed and by whom. the property is everyones, yet you can use it for a certain amount of time??
That depends. It might be managed by individuals within a syndicate, or by a council, and so on. Usually the emphasis is on democratic procedures. The catch, however, is that democracy is inherently statist, so unless we're talking free entry and exit from the system, it might not really be anarchist at all. Another thing is that a lot of leftists do not believe in the legitimacy of the right ot private property, and instead assert nonsense like "usage rights" or "personal property" &c. In the end, they amount to the same thing, as someone will be controlling resources and excluding unauthorized individuals. Don't believe me? Ask one of them what will happen if their collective of choice comes under attack. The idea of common ownership is inimical to the notion of anarchism. Some of the lefties realize this, and embrace self-ownership and the right to property, even if reluctantly. The walking contradictions amongst them, on the other hand, insist on denying the notion.
-Jon
To darkness I condemn you...
the question is whether a syndicate can trade with another one. talking about "democratic syndicates" is one thing, but envisioning a universal cooperation between a million syndicates makes my head explode. the emphasis being that if your talking about "real" socialism (as communists describe it, then a worker must not only work for his collective but also coordinate production and consumption between billions of humans.
im not being sarcastic towards by collectivist brethen and just want genuinly understand the point that many of them are trying to make
I think there would be trade, but I'm not sure. Some of them are advocates of autarky.
Acts 4:
32And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul: neither said any of them that ought of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common.
33And with great power gave the apostles witness of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus: and great grace was upon them all.
34Neither was there any among them that lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold,
35And laid them down at the apostles' feet: and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need.
I think this is what the socialists are imagining when they say voluntary socialism, though I would call it charity. They are probably also envisioning themselves as the distributors.
I think a way to look at it is to compare it to free slavery? Can a human being voluntarily agree to become a slave, and if so is he/she bound to that contract?
The answer seems to me, no that is not possible, as you can not give up the selfproperty at all, it is impossible. Any other property, that is outside of yourself, can be traded, gifted, or rented away, but you can never trade, gift or rent your self (in the physical not the metaphysical sense) to a third party. Why? Because the only entity that has control over your actions is you. Noone can make you act, noone can make you lift your arm unless you agree to do so. You are the only being in the world that can operate yourself as a living system. There is no way around that. So because it is a law of nature that the living system "human" is internally controlled by itself, freedom is inalienable.
If people build a society and call it socialist and decide to work and live together sharing all their properties, this is just another cooperation of humans. Yet, the most important means of production is the individual. Without that basic mean of production no other means have any value. So, beside the inability of a socialst system to measure success and failure (i.e. can not build any price system and therefor has no way to know if something worked or not) it is this aspect that makes voluntary socialism an oxymoron as voluntary slavery is one.
In the begining there was nothing, and it exploded.
Terry Pratchett (on the big bang theory)
Ludwig von Mises Institute | 518 West Magnolia Avenue | Auburn, Alabama 36832-4528
Phone: 334.321.2100 · Fax: 334.321.2119
contact@Mises.org | webmaster | AOL-IM MainMises
Mises.org sitemap