> I would love to be able to have political discussions about these issues
I'll bite.
> socialism is defined
From each according to his ability, to each according to his need. Socialism is the way. Communism is the unreachable goal.
> If socialism is public control, this does not equal totalitarianism. Social democracy is a form of democratic public control of resources.
You can discuss things ad nauseum and it will mean nothing. The human mind is too primitive to account for all the facets of reality. There is an almost infinite number of factors that play into the reality of the state.
In the end, the only way to know if something works is to try it.
Socialism was tried. Repeatedly. It always led to a totalitarian state.
Democracy is tyranny by the majority. When protections of the individual are removed for the sake of "social justice" or socialism or for any other reason, the majority is free to abuse the minority for its gain. And they do. Very quickly. This escalates over and over, until a totalitarian state is born.
Socialism was tried. Repeatedly. It always led to a totalitarian state.
Marxist-Leninism is what you're referring to, and yes, that has led to totalitarianism. However, socialism predated Marx, and there are non-Marxist (and anti-Marxist) socialist philosophies.
"From each according..." is not a tenet shared by all socialists.
Also, Marx was really good at critiquing capitalism, but he never actually had a plan for after the revolution. Except to think everybody would be happy and a collective, pretty much perfect, rationalism would be manifest because of the dynamics of history. Then we would all just see the answer, which is to share and be nice. (He was a hegelian, remember, even if he didn't like to admit it.)
Also ... its not like there was some blueprint that the Soviet Union applied as if they were building a machine tool on a large scale. The Soviet State has, in its large scale state organized brutality and corruption, is completely in line with Russian history (no offense to my Russian friends.... Russia is also soulful and brilliant).
> "From each according..." is not a tenet shared by all socialists.
Yes, of course. Something that is shared by all socialists is redistribution. If you're not redistributing something, then you're doing nothing. To redistribute something, you must infringe upon the liberties of the individual for the sake of another or a group of others. The more you do this, the faster you accelerate the march toward totalitarianism.
For example, a minimal state that only provides a police force to enforce the laws and taxes individuals accordingly may take hundreds or even a thousand years to collapse into a totalitarian state. On the other hand, when you throw individual protections out the window, it may only take a few years. For example, contrary to popular belief, the period between the Russian revolution and Stalin's takeover was really interesting. It would take too long to go into it, but they tried some really exciting stuff and some of it worked. Unfortunately, when you discard individual liberty, it creates an opportunity for totalitarianism to step through the door.
In this context it is worth noting the history of socialism among the Mormons based on that scripture. These days it's hard to find a group as opposed to what we consider socialism now but that wasn't always the case. Starting in the 1830s (well before Marx became influential) the Mormons began various socialist operations among its members. There are notable differences to modern socialism that I don't have time to get into here but the similarities are striking. For more detail you can look up information on the "United Order" and "Law of Consecration" in relation to Mormons. Quick summary: Very hard to implement.
I think that there are still a lot of "socialist" (for the greater good payed for by tax/tithe) programs within the LDS church; it's the US Federal government into what they consider their own sort of promised land they don't like.
Like most successful industrial countries, they have a strong government that works closely with private industry and "the people", as opposed to the naive laissez faire beloved by neoliberals. Think Japan/ Germany -- STILL the industrial leaders of the world.
A friend of mine also said the LDS shifted to republicanism in the seventies because of sexual politics, not economic policy. The genius of Reagan and friends was to use conflicts inspired by seismic cultural shifts of the seventies to push through economic policies that benefit a fairly small minority of the US.
This highlights one of the two major problems I have with religion: altruism. (The other thing I don't accept is faith as a valid method of obtaining knowledge.)
In Atlas Shrugged, John Galt says, "I swear by my life and my love of it, that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine."
Edit: Why the downvotes? The parent post quoted the Bible, so why is it invalid for me to quote the second most popular book next to it?
Is Atlas Shrugged the second most popular book next to the bible? A cite would be cool. Also, nobody likes people like John Galt or those who try to follow him; some of us think that there is as much blind faith to strictly follow economists silly models as it does to follow any other religion.
I believe that claim is a reference to a 1991 survey conducted by the Library of Congress of 2,000 Book Of The Month readers, so take that as you will. Atlas Shrugged has sold around 7 million copies since it was published, which puts it at around half as many copies as The Hitchhikers Guide To The Galaxy.
John Galt is a fictional character in Atlas Shrugged.
Rand's philosophy is not about economics - it's a complete system, with distinct metaphysical, epistemological and moral positions, all of which give rise to applications in politics, art, science and other fields of human endeavor. (Not unlike Aristotle.)
It isn't fair to critique a philosopher (or anybody) without reading them, but ... I just can't take Ayn Rand seriously. Like, at all. And to compare her to Aristotle seems laughable.
So you haven't read her, and you admit that you're acting unfairly?
How do you know that comparing her to Aristotle is laughable if you don't actually know what she said?
I recommend "Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology" if you'd like to compare her epistemology with Aristotle's.
Edit: again, why the downvote? Yes, I know some people don't like Ayn Rand (and others adore her). But there's nothing in this message that warrants a downvote.
> Has it's origins in the Christian Bible - Acts 4:34-35.
If you're suggesting that we should accept something because it is in the Christian Bible, you're suggesting that we should accept anything in said bible. (Why? Because your argument for that thing applies to everything in said bible.) Moreover, surely you accept everything in said bible.
But it is somewhat amusing to me that some of the people who argue rabidly against socialism are proud of the fact that they do accept everything in the Bible.
One difference is that the sharing is opt-in. You don't have to give up all your stuff, just to be "in". When it's part of a government, it's not optional.
By the way, I didn't say Socialism wasn't defined. I clearly said the assumptions that he laid out were not defined. The larger ideas, like the goal of life. I don't think those concepts are addressed often, they are assumed. Meaning is more basic than truth.
I'll bite.
> socialism is defined
From each according to his ability, to each according to his need. Socialism is the way. Communism is the unreachable goal.
> If socialism is public control, this does not equal totalitarianism. Social democracy is a form of democratic public control of resources.
You can discuss things ad nauseum and it will mean nothing. The human mind is too primitive to account for all the facets of reality. There is an almost infinite number of factors that play into the reality of the state.
In the end, the only way to know if something works is to try it.
Socialism was tried. Repeatedly. It always led to a totalitarian state.
Democracy is tyranny by the majority. When protections of the individual are removed for the sake of "social justice" or socialism or for any other reason, the majority is free to abuse the minority for its gain. And they do. Very quickly. This escalates over and over, until a totalitarian state is born.