What you describe is anarchy. What I describe is a voluntary shift towards policies that empower workers over corporations, that take back common ownership of resources like water, land, digital networks, energy, food, and transportation. Please stop portraying this idea as radical, it is considered the conservative position in many developed nations. Forcing anything causes a backlash and non-participation.
Got it. So your definition of socialism is more in the vein of the western European social democracies, which Norsefire fails/refuses to understand.
Nonsense; there would be the basic rules against murder, theft, fraud, and the sort. It isn't very voluntary at all; it's mob rule, and mob rule is barbaric. If you can allow everyone choice individually, why wouldn't you? You don't seem to want to. And "taking back"? Please. It isn't yours. It's both radical and immoral.
You're caricature-ing his opinion. If you actually read his responses to questions, you'll see that his actual opinions are completely different than you've made them out to be.
Spider,Some questions, What do you do if 90% of the population agrees to take the top 100 richest people, half of their possessions and divided them among themselves? What do you do if,65% want to share everything and not 35%?
In the opening post, I outlined a method wherein socialists can enjoy their community while leaving everyone else alone. He disagrees and insists that everyone be forced into the system; this means that he is suggesting that mob rule makes something "okay" that clearly isn't. Why can't he live and let live? I have no problem with socialists sharing among themselves as long as they leave me alone; I'll choose who I want to interact with and to what extent and in what manner wherein we both voluntarily and mutually agree. That is the foundation of society.
If you can't see that you and spidergoat have different definitions of what ``socialism'' means, then you don't deserve to be a member here.
Socialism is about community and sharing, and the good of the collective; right? And why can't this community be entirely voluntarily to opt-in and participate? It isn't a matter of definitions; it's a matter that he wants it to be all-encompassing over a broad "claimed" territory and I want it to be among willing individuals. Certainly my definition is the more moral one, then.
Is there a particular reason you are attacking me? Clearly you are illiterate, because he does not refer to "voluntary" in the same way that I do; he thinks of voluntary as democratic, as a shift towards socialism through voting, but after that shift everyone is still obliged to participate. I think of voluntary as purely on an individual level, where government is not involved. He still wants to administer socialism through government, which means that it is NOT voluntary. Voting does not make just anything legitimate, just like we can't vote to rape somebody. My voluntary is truly VOLUNTARY: there are never legal obligations. He wants to create legal obligations for something that he doesn't need in order for HIM to participate.
How would anyone institute your own preferred system of political organization? Don't say a vote, because you already ruled that out. And don't say force, because that is also ruled out as unfair. And don't say voluntarily, because what if 60% of the population disapprove? You have created a paradox.
Because I agree with what you're saying, but because you are an absolute idiot, you're making capitalists everywhere look bad.
My sense of morality,which I can not argue, says: There are also thieves or robbers,if elevated to State policy.
Also, making sure that democracy is not simply a dictatorship of the majority. Then, for minority the same thing if it is a personal dictatorship, military or any kind of dictatorship. May lead to civil war.
Cuba is not a socialist country, its not even a communist country, its a totalitarian dictatorship claiming to be communist/socialist.
I will try too define what I mean by that statement later on, I have some business to take care of right now.
OK, what do I mean by Canada Being a mixed Socialism/Capitalist nation. Canada has Strong Controls on Banks, Hospitals, transportation, military, Police/fire etc....Socilist strong Public/Government Control. while our Commerce Private sector, The walmarts, future shops, Sears, to Large Oil Industries anything goes, Unlike In the USA If you Can Monopolize a sector go for it, we have very lenient controls if any on the Private sector.Capitalist Weak public/Government control The Only rules we enforce on the private sector is Environment, and worker Safety,(and of course there taxes, which all so is extremal low in Canada, we generate most taxes through our Gst and PST taxes, merged in some places to be called the HST.
