tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32250954.post3063169209762573479..comments2024-03-12T02:18:53.121-07:00Comments on Molly'sBlog: mollymewhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10608757779720671118noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32250954.post-3068627417565194822009-12-29T17:46:45.787-08:002009-12-29T17:46:45.787-08:00There will be difficulties with any attempt at def...There will be difficulties with any attempt at definition. I have deliberately decided to use a definition that can include BOTH statist and non-statist socilaists. Though even "statist" socialists have gradually moved towards more libertarian concepts over the past few decades, I doubt either the workability and/or the sincerity of the halfway houses they have proposed.It still has to be admitted, however, that the commonly accepted definition of "socialist" evokes much more of a image of state socialism than libertarian socialism. I don't think that there is any point to trying, from the position of an extremely tiny minority, to "read out" the statists from the definition. What I have tried to do is go back beyond whatever forms that this or that socialism may propose and get at the MORAL INTENTION behind the idea of socialism. Fear not, I'll get into the forms later.<br /> Anonymous...I was referring mainly to the primmies not the "anarcho-caps". I recognize that down USA way the anarcho-caps are actually a much bigger school of fish than all the various half baked derivatives of anarchism put together. In the rest of the world, however, their existence is hardly noticeable. Quite frankly they have such different purposes for what they believe that I find it is best to simply ignore them.They are NOT a significant factor anywhere outside the USA (unless, of course, they are part of organizing right wing coups in various poverty stricken countries). There is little doubt that any libertarian society worthy of the name would allow freedom to "organize a community any damn way you want to". Here's the problem. Unlike some other language English has the same word for the singular and plural second person pronoun. The "you" singular will ALWAYS be confronted by pre-existing "arrangements" made by other people, and not participating in such will occasion a certain amount of "inconvenience" if nothing else.<br /> Nicolas, as I said above I was trying to establish the "ethical goals" that lie behind socialism of whatever variety. The Wikipedia definition may "seem" clearer, but it does leave the matter of what is the "public" unclear just as it excludes the consumer cooperative from the litany of "socialist means". As to the "method of compensation" by "the amount of labour expended", known in anarchist history as "collectivism" this is NOT connected with the first part of the definition. It is also something that the vast majority of socialists, statist and anarchists, definitely do NOT believe in. The difficulties in determining the amount of labour seperate from BOTH its utility and its difficulty/disagreeableness are such that very few socialists and/or anarchists think this is a laudable goal. The major present day exception might be the followers of Parecon who attempt to "smooth out" such differences via what they call "balanced job complexes". But, as I said, I wasn't getting into "means" in this first essay, merely general goals.mollymewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10608757779720671118noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32250954.post-13746882989001879432009-12-28T22:37:56.415-08:002009-12-28T22:37:56.415-08:00I am not sure about your definition of socialism. ...I am not sure about your definition of socialism. To me socialism have always meant primarly puting the social wealth and the means of producing it in common.<br /><br />Any way, I prefer this definition I just found on Wikipedia wich indeed encompass both libertarian and autoritarian meaning of the word:<br /><br />Socialism refers to various theories of economic organization advocating public or direct worker ownership and administration of the means of production and allocation of resources, and a society characterized by equal access to resources for all individuals with a method of compensation based on the amount of labor expended.Nicolashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15916064435601366244noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32250954.post-10563256215965438772009-12-28T09:42:25.796-08:002009-12-28T09:42:25.796-08:00Bang on as usual! Only quibble is about including...Bang on as usual! Only quibble is about including "state socialism" under the term socialism. None of the founders of socialism favoured the state owning and running things. (And even those paradigmatic state socialists, the German Social Democrats developed a virtual counter-culture of cooperatives, mutual aid societies and municipal housing and industry.) State socialism really does not supplant the older concept of cooperative production until Stalinism and Fabianism become dominant.Larry Gambonehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04965037776214596919noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32250954.post-51680472244379529052009-12-28T09:01:13.825-08:002009-12-28T09:01:13.825-08:00I am a bit confused as to what you mean by "A...I am a bit confused as to what you mean by "Anarchism in an american sense". Are you referring to the psuedo-religious primitivists, or anarcho-"capitalism"?<br /><br />Additionally, I do not think we can honestly group state socialism and anarcho-socialism under the same generic term of "socialism". In state socialism (or state capitalism, for that matter), people are required to participate in a certain set of pre-planned arrangements for maintaining a community.<br /><br />In anarchism you can organize a community any damn way you want to.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com