Ukraine Crisis

How should society be organised, if at all?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22257
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Ukraine Crisis

Post by Immanuel Can »

Belinda wrote: Thu Feb 02, 2023 1:09 pm Coops are non-state socialism in action.
No, they're just coo-ops. And they can be run totally "capitalistically," since only the members of the co-op are engaged in any sharing of resources, and do so voluntarily and even selectively, as it suits them. The government has no involvement, and the larger economy remains untouched.

Socialism is a political creed, and an absolutely demanding one. It requires not merely voluntary cooperation, but forcible mandating of economic redistribution, and the operating of a national or even international economy (in theory) by Big Government tyranny. Central to its creed is that government must totally own "the means of production," which can mean anything, really. And it always results in totalitarianism and death, precisely because it is an ideology that cannot allow for any alternate economic systems, and cannot rely on voluntary participation. It can only be implemented (or sustained) by violence.
Belinda
Posts: 8034
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: Ukraine Crisis

Post by Belinda »

Immanuel Can wrote: Thu Feb 02, 2023 2:00 pm
Belinda wrote: Thu Feb 02, 2023 1:09 pm Coops are non-state socialism in action.
No, they're just coo-ops. And they can be run totally "capitalistically," since only the members of the co-op are engaged in any sharing of resources, and do so voluntarily and even selectively, as it suits them. The government has no involvement, and the larger economy remains untouched.

Socialism is a political creed, and an absolutely demanding one. It requires not merely voluntary cooperation, but forcible mandating of economic redistribution, and the operating of a national or even international economy (in theory) by Big Government tyranny. Central to its creed is that government must totally own "the means of production," which can mean anything, really. And it always results in totalitarianism and death, precisely because it is an ideology that cannot allow for any alternate economic systems, and cannot rely on voluntary participation. It can only be implemented (or sustained) by violence.
Certainly coops exist within capitalist economies. Nobody earning a living in a capitalist economy is forced to join a cooperative group. Again you are misinformed.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22257
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Ukraine Crisis

Post by Immanuel Can »

Belinda wrote: Thu Feb 02, 2023 3:19 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Thu Feb 02, 2023 2:00 pm
Belinda wrote: Thu Feb 02, 2023 1:09 pm Coops are non-state socialism in action.
No, they're just coo-ops. And they can be run totally "capitalistically," since only the members of the co-op are engaged in any sharing of resources, and do so voluntarily and even selectively, as it suits them. The government has no involvement, and the larger economy remains untouched.

Socialism is a political creed, and an absolutely demanding one. It requires not merely voluntary cooperation, but forcible mandating of economic redistribution, and the operating of a national or even international economy (in theory) by Big Government tyranny. Central to its creed is that government must totally own "the means of production," which can mean anything, really. And it always results in totalitarianism and death, precisely because it is an ideology that cannot allow for any alternate economic systems, and cannot rely on voluntary participation. It can only be implemented (or sustained) by violence.
Certainly coops exist within capitalist economies. Nobody earning a living in a capitalist economy is forced to join a cooperative group.
But under Socialism, nobody is allowed to be anything but "in the group." There is nothing "co-operative" about it: it's made to happen by pure force of numbers and force of arms. Socialism cannot allow any free markets, or any "means of production" to be owned by anything but the monolythic "State."
Belinda
Posts: 8034
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: Ukraine Crisis

Post by Belinda »

Immanuel Can wrote: Thu Feb 02, 2023 3:22 pm
Belinda wrote: Thu Feb 02, 2023 3:19 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Thu Feb 02, 2023 2:00 pm
No, they're just coo-ops. And they can be run totally "capitalistically," since only the members of the co-op are engaged in any sharing of resources, and do so voluntarily and even selectively, as it suits them. The government has no involvement, and the larger economy remains untouched.

Socialism is a political creed, and an absolutely demanding one. It requires not merely voluntary cooperation, but forcible mandating of economic redistribution, and the operating of a national or even international economy (in theory) by Big Government tyranny. Central to its creed is that government must totally own "the means of production," which can mean anything, really. And it always results in totalitarianism and death, precisely because it is an ideology that cannot allow for any alternate economic systems, and cannot rely on voluntary participation. It can only be implemented (or sustained) by violence.
Certainly coops exist within capitalist economies. Nobody earning a living in a capitalist economy is forced to join a cooperative group.
But under Socialism, nobody is allowed to be anything but "in the group." There is nothing "co-operative" about it: it's made to happen by pure force of numbers and force of arms. Socialism cannot allow any free markets, or any "means of production" to be owned by anything but the monolythic "State."
But common or garden cooperative groups are socialist in intent and practise and are not breaking any laws of their capitalist state.
The Law on Cooperatives was a major economic reform implemented in the Soviet Union during General Secretary Mikhail Gorbachev's perestroika and glasnost reforms. It was implemented in May 1988, allowed for independent worker-owned cooperatives to operate in the Soviet Union, as opposed to just state-owned enterprises, and gave guidelines as to how these cooperatives should be managed.[1] While originally the law imposed high taxes and restrictions on employment, it was eventually revised so as not to discourage activity within the private sector.[2]

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22257
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Ukraine Crisis

Post by Immanuel Can »

Belinda wrote: Thu Feb 02, 2023 8:40 pm But common or garden cooperative groups are socialist...
You're using the term losely, like some kind of metaphor. Literal Socialism, the ideology of Socialism is quite another thing than mere cooperation. And one of the chief ways it's different is in the contrast between voluntary and politically enforced "sharing."

If you think "common or garden cooperatives" are enough to be "Socialism", then would it make you happy if those "elites" you were speaking of were simply asked voluntarily to share? Do you think they'd do it, if you did? But nothing's stopping them now, so it's as if that's already happening: so why isn't that enough for "Socialism"?

Answer: because Socialism requires the mandating of "sharing," and enforced "sharing," and the destruction of those who refuse to join its "co-op." In other words, it necessarily requires theft, tyranny, oppression of dissenters, elimination of individual freedoms, and eventually murder, too.
Belinda
Posts: 8034
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: Ukraine Crisis

Post by Belinda »

Immanuel Can wrote: Thu Feb 02, 2023 9:52 pm
Belinda wrote: Thu Feb 02, 2023 8:40 pm But common or garden cooperative groups are socialist...
You're using the term losely, like some kind of metaphor. Literal Socialism, the ideology of Socialism is quite another thing than mere cooperation. And one of the chief ways it's different is in the contrast between voluntary and politically enforced "sharing."

If you think "common or garden cooperatives" are enough to be "Socialism", then would it make you happy if those "elites" you were speaking of were simply asked voluntarily to share? Do you think they'd do it, if you did? But nothing's stopping them now, so it's as if that's already happening: so why isn't that enough for "Socialism"?

Answer: because Socialism requires the mandating of "sharing," and enforced "sharing," and the destruction of those who refuse to join its "co-op." In other words, it necessarily requires theft, tyranny, oppression of dissenters, elimination of individual freedoms, and eventually murder, too.
I am a socialist and I'm not a tyrant. I suppose some socialists are bad people or become bad people. You are probably confusing socialism with communism. I like the basic idea of communism but the communist political elite is as bad as other uncontrolled political elites.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22257
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Ukraine Crisis

Post by Immanuel Can »

Belinda wrote: Thu Feb 02, 2023 11:43 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Thu Feb 02, 2023 9:52 pm
Belinda wrote: Thu Feb 02, 2023 8:40 pm But common or garden cooperative groups are socialist...
You're using the term losely, like some kind of metaphor. Literal Socialism, the ideology of Socialism is quite another thing than mere cooperation. And one of the chief ways it's different is in the contrast between voluntary and politically enforced "sharing."

If you think "common or garden cooperatives" are enough to be "Socialism", then would it make you happy if those "elites" you were speaking of were simply asked voluntarily to share? Do you think they'd do it, if you did? But nothing's stopping them now, so it's as if that's already happening: so why isn't that enough for "Socialism"?

Answer: because Socialism requires the mandating of "sharing," and enforced "sharing," and the destruction of those who refuse to join its "co-op." In other words, it necessarily requires theft, tyranny, oppression of dissenters, elimination of individual freedoms, and eventually murder, too.
I am a socialist and I'm not a tyrant.
That's bad news for you. It means you're the enabler of a tyrant , a useful tool for him to exploit, so he can most certainly rob you of your freedoms, and later, very likely, turn on you personally.

Look at North Korea. It's not fun for any of the Socialists there, except maybe the elite ones. And since you're not a political Socialist, they won't let you be one of those. So you're going to end up on the "peasant" and "prole" end of the equation, serving the interests of the totalitarians.
Belinda
Posts: 8034
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: Ukraine Crisis

Post by Belinda »

Immanuel Can wrote: Thu Feb 02, 2023 11:47 pm
Belinda wrote: Thu Feb 02, 2023 11:43 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Thu Feb 02, 2023 9:52 pm
You're using the term losely, like some kind of metaphor. Literal Socialism, the ideology of Socialism is quite another thing than mere cooperation. And one of the chief ways it's different is in the contrast between voluntary and politically enforced "sharing."

If you think "common or garden cooperatives" are enough to be "Socialism", then would it make you happy if those "elites" you were speaking of were simply asked voluntarily to share? Do you think they'd do it, if you did? But nothing's stopping them now, so it's as if that's already happening: so why isn't that enough for "Socialism"?

Answer: because Socialism requires the mandating of "sharing," and enforced "sharing," and the destruction of those who refuse to join its "co-op." In other words, it necessarily requires theft, tyranny, oppression of dissenters, elimination of individual freedoms, and eventually murder, too.
I am a socialist and I'm not a tyrant.
That's bad news for you. It means you're the enabler of a tyrant , a useful tool for him to exploit, so he can most certainly rob you of your freedoms, and later, very likely, turn on you personally.

Look at North Korea. It's not fun for any of the Socialists there, except maybe the elite ones. And since you're not a political Socialist, they won't let you be one of those. So you're going to end up on the "peasant" and "prole" end of the equation, serving the interests of the totalitarians.
But socialists organise against tyrannical elites so that all men are free of tyranny.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22257
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Ukraine Crisis

Post by Immanuel Can »

Belinda wrote: Fri Feb 03, 2023 7:32 pm But socialists organise against tyrannical elites so that all men are free of tyranny.
No, what they do, historically, is rebel against one kind of tyranny so they can impose another kind. That's all. In both cases, it's the common person who suffers.
Belinda
Posts: 8034
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: Ukraine Crisis

Post by Belinda »

Immanuel Can wrote: Fri Feb 03, 2023 7:37 pm
Belinda wrote: Fri Feb 03, 2023 7:32 pm But socialists organise against tyrannical elites so that all men are free of tyranny.
No, what they do, historically, is rebel against one kind of tyranny so they can impose another kind. That's all. In both cases, it's the common person who suffers.
But you confuse socialism with communism.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22257
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Ukraine Crisis

Post by Immanuel Can »

Belinda wrote: Fri Feb 03, 2023 8:19 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Fri Feb 03, 2023 7:37 pm
Belinda wrote: Fri Feb 03, 2023 7:32 pm But socialists organise against tyrannical elites so that all men are free of tyranny.
No, what they do, historically, is rebel against one kind of tyranny so they can impose another kind. That's all. In both cases, it's the common person who suffers.
But you confuse socialism with communism.
There IS no substantive difference. Communism is just Socialism by the most direct means. The ideology is the same, the goals are the same, and the outcomes are always the same...economic collapse and piles of corpses.
Gary Childress
Posts: 8117
Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2011 3:08 pm
Location: Retirement Home for foolosophers

Re: Ukraine Crisis

Post by Gary Childress »

Immanuel Can wrote: Fri Feb 03, 2023 11:00 pm
Belinda wrote: Fri Feb 03, 2023 8:19 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Fri Feb 03, 2023 7:37 pm No, what they do, historically, is rebel against one kind of tyranny so they can impose another kind. That's all. In both cases, it's the common person who suffers.
But you confuse socialism with communism.
There IS no substantive difference. Communism is just Socialism by the most direct means. The ideology is the same, the goals are the same, and the outcomes are always the same...economic collapse and piles of corpses.
Sounds like just the sort of thing a God who murders via floods would approve of. Enjoy the company of Yahweh and his henchmen when you die. No thanks for me. I'd prefer oblivion.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22257
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Ukraine Crisis

Post by Immanuel Can »

Gary Childress wrote: Sat Feb 04, 2023 1:18 am I'd prefer oblivion.
We can't choose oblivion, Gary. And we cannot choose not to have an afterlife. We can only choose where we do.

And it sounds to me like you're trying to make a choice you really don't want to make. But it's yours to make, so make it carefully.
Gary Childress
Posts: 8117
Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2011 3:08 pm
Location: Retirement Home for foolosophers

Re: Ukraine Crisis

Post by Gary Childress »

Immanuel Can wrote: Sat Feb 04, 2023 3:27 am
Gary Childress wrote: Sat Feb 04, 2023 1:18 am I'd prefer oblivion.
We can't choose oblivion, Gary. And we cannot choose not to have an afterlife. We can only choose where we do.
I just think that's an extremely myopic and disparaging worldview. The only thing worse than Christianity and Judaism is Islam. who wants to spend eternity with an asshole "father" who allegedly drowned almost everyone in an epic act of genocide because they displeased him? That's not a good god, IC. You need to look closer at what you're worshiping.

I mean what would you say to a Muslim who told you Mohammed was the truest prophet of God? And when you told him he's full of shit, he told you, "we can't choose that Mohammed is not the truest prophet of God?" Would such a statement make sense to you? Be honest. :roll:
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22257
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Ukraine Crisis

Post by Immanuel Can »

Gary Childress wrote: Sat Feb 04, 2023 5:24 am
Immanuel Can wrote: Sat Feb 04, 2023 3:27 am
Gary Childress wrote: Sat Feb 04, 2023 1:18 am I'd prefer oblivion.
We can't choose oblivion, Gary. And we cannot choose not to have an afterlife. We can only choose where we do.
I just think that's an extremely myopic and despairing worldview.
It's not "myopic," nor is it "despairing." It's actually extremely empowering. The truth always is. It puts the choices in your hands, and says "Choose wisely." That's very adult.

Here's what nobody gets: a choice with no consequences.

I've advised you before to be very circumspect about how you challenge God. I've done that in your interest. One can ask a fair question, and even a difficult one...and it's all fair. But to be insulting, to misrepresent God's character and actions, and to speak so as to reject Him...well, that has consequences.

Two-year-olds have hissy fits all the time, because they have an extremely limited grasp of consequences. They scream, they cry, they turn red, they lash out, they kick and hold their breath...without any sense of how what they are doing has any impact on others or on their world. But any adult knows there are no consequence-free choices.
Post Reply