In a socialist society everyone is equal

Post Reply New Topic

Then the Strong will ride roughshod over the Weak.

Take your choice. Some government with some social order or no government and no social order. Rather a free for all or a crap shoot.

ruveyn

I could not be a part of the very system that is screwing so many people over.........even if I tried to accept the food and reasonable chance of survivial its likely I would kill myself because I would feel that bad about giving up everything I stand for just to survive. Most of my family would want nothing to do with them either.

Exactly - unless you'd want to see a civil war take place with massacres and all the rest, I'll take government thanks Sweetleaf.

Yes because I bet all those people in the ruling elitie would easily survive if they where dropped off in the wilderness with no weapons and a bare minimum of survival equipment such as a iron skillet, a bic lighter, a sleeping bag and maybe a couple cans of food. point being maybe they aren't so strong........its stupid to assume the rulers are the strong ones, its those who challenge them that are strong.

government is not required for social order.......did north american native american tribes have governments? no and they manged to thrive just fine until the damn imperialist europeans came over here and started causing problems.

What do you mean why should there be? There will be one without a Government. "Why should there be" implies that something can be done to prevent this in the absence of a Government. And what would that be?

Then it's nothing more than a pipe dream. You often mention that you challenge Capitalism, but do you ever challenge your own ideas as to how they're supposed to work?

I don't expect you to have everything sorted out, but you don't even have the fundamentals sorted out.

Sorry but a lot of the things you say are vague and emotional. You never really get down to details.

You should really have this figured out. Then you will see why Communism (a stateless society as you put it) is nothing more than a utopia.

I think Tequila's explanation is flawed. It doesn't boil down to just someone wanting power over others, but the fact that a hierarchy exists because those at the top are granted power to serve the interests of the whole "tribe". Hell, even dictators have to serve the interests of their own cronies, otherwise they get overthrown by them as history has proven time and time again. It is my opinion that much of tyranny comes from the masses rather than the powerful few.

Before you start saying "Why should it be this way?", it serves a functional purpose. You grant power to your plumber because he knows more about fixing pipes than you do. You grant power to teachers to teach your children because that teacher can do it better than you can. Thus, hierarchies are inherent to the practical reality of running society. You are already putting a plumber above yourself in the hierarchy of pipe fixing.

But if there must be a government.........I accept under one condition, 'people should not be afraid of the government, the government should be afraid of the people.' if not forget it or they will clearly have far too much power over the people. That is what we've lost site of in the U.S.........the government does not fear us anymore they feel they can do whatever they want and no one will stand in their way. Well that needs to change.

A chief is to a native tribe what a Government is to modern civilization. A hierarchy IS required for social order since it is those at the top that are supposed to prevent the medium fish. You can try to challenge this all you like, but social welfare and economic regulations are a perfect example of this function. It is the big fish (Government) that prevents the medium fish (bosses and managers) from eating the small fish (workers and the unemployers).

Getting rid of one manifestation of a hierarchy isn't going to get rid of a social hierarchy itself.

Last edited by AceOfSpades on 26 Dec 2011, 12:43 pm, edited 1 time in total.

The chief of the tribe, was judge and jury. His word carried weight and he could command punishment. That made him a ruler.

In tribal societies the elders exercise a governmental role even without a formal government. Their word carries weight.

Hobbes pointed this mode of operation in his famous -Leviathan-. In order to bring order into society one must appoint a governor (in fact) to impose his will to prevent civil strife.

ruveyn

ruveyn

Exactly. Getting rid of an institutional hierarchy doesn't mean you're getting rid of a social hierarchy altogether since social hierarchy is rooted in our instincts rather than conditioning. Conditioning determines how a social hierarchy manifest, not whether or not a social hierarchy will exist. Although our social hierarchy is much more complex than that of an animal, it still shows the same patterns.

Last edited by AceOfSpades on 26 Dec 2011, 12:47 pm, edited 1 time in total.

No, indeed not. Mafia rule would also provide a form of social order. Do you want to live under that?

Government isn't required for social order but it's by far the best solution there is. A stateless society is a pipe dream, with various barbarians murdering and terrorising their way to the top.

Or would warlordism be more to your liking? It all works the same way.

I don't see that as granting power I see that as letting someone who knows more about what needs fixing then you aid you by fixing it......allowing a plumber to fix your plumbing does not give them power over you, it gives them the power to fix your plumbing and if they screw it up you could sue them, be very angry ect......I mean if you hire the plumber aren't you the one in power since you can fire them?
so yeah I am not sure that is the best example to get your point across.

What utter rubbish. Of course First Nations had governments. In fact, there was great diversity in First Nation governments, from rigid, hereditary chieftanships to dynamic collectivist decision making.

Living together in communities means living within a set of rules. Who gets which parts of the hunt? Who gets to till which fields? Who gets to marry whom? As soon as you have a community you have rules. And when you have rules, you have to have a way of articulating those rules and of enforcing them. That means government.

Now, perhaps many of the institutions look different from what you understand government to be, but government they are, nonetheless.

The reality is that these argument are altogether too facile. The nature of a country's economy is not like picking a combo plate from a chinese menu with "no substitutions." Economies develop and adapt to suit the conditions in which they exist.

Singapore, Gibraltar and Hongkong may well be financially prosperous--but they are not viable states without the ability to import water and food. They could not exist as closed societies, so their economies develop in the only way that they can to survive.

North Korea, Sudan and Somalia, on the other hand, have no meaningul financial system. The economy in these places is operated with the currency of connections and influence. Those with power accumulate goods and control access to services, and they are dispensed to those loyal to the people in power.

There is neither pure capitalism nor pure socialism anywere in the world. All there is are diverse economies that have developed according to the natural and demographic conditions in which they find themselves. Some countries have the balance of features pretty finely tuned, others are gross distortions.

Only a foolish person runs uncritically to one extreme or another. The wise one looks to the moderate approach.

That's why the British realised that they had to pull out. The place - particularly the truncated part of it that would theoretically have remained under the Crown - wasn't viable without imported food and water (largely supplied by the PRC I believe) and the territory wasn't in any way militarily defensible anyway.

Would you rather people feared their local warlord or tribal elder instead? Too much power invested in one place without effective scrutiny, no matter whom holds it, is bad for everyone.

A cheif in a native tribe and the government in modern society are not quite the same thing......but I can see your point, but I think it more indicates there are other ways to have social order then a government. Also its nice on paper that the big fish(government), prevents the medium fish(bosses & managers) from eating the small fish(workers and unemployed)..........but the current government is failing at this. Seems like they are more intrested in doing whatever the hell corporate america wants so they can keep getting paid and keep their power regardless of how it effects the majority of citizens.