Is it possible to possess socialist principles while executing economics like an anarchist?
TelfordUS: Is it possible to possess socialist principles while executing economics like an anarchist?
Well define what you mean by 'anarchist'
'Men do not change, they unmask themselves' - Germaine de Stael
Better yet, define what you mean by socialist principles
Define 'Is', please.
jmorris84:Define 'Is', please.
Poppycock! These are fair questions.
Socialist principles: humanity, fraternity, etc. Non-individualistic ambition
Anarchist: One who supports anarchy; one who acts without supervision of a compulsory System of Action
Is: the equal sign
Laughing Man: jmorris84:Define 'Is', please. Poppycock! These are fair questions.
TelfordUS:humanity, fraternity, etc. Non-individualistic ambition
Well we preach fraternity here...well an implied fraternity.
TelfordUS: Anarchist: One who supports anarchy; one who acts without supervision of a compulsory System of Action
I think one can be a mutualist. An anarchist who supports 'non-compulsory' socialism. Its possible but not very consistent.
These are not socialist principles. socialist principles are; envy, ignorance,parasitism, war, poverty, and that jews are bad.
Where there is no property there is no justice; a proposition as certain as any demonstration in Euclid
Fools! not to see that what they madly desire would be a calamity to them as no hands but their own could bring
Laughing Man: TelfordUS:humanity, fraternity, etc. Non-individualistic ambition Well we preach fraternity here...well an implied fraternity. TelfordUS: Anarchist: One who supports anarchy; one who acts without supervision of a compulsory System of Action I think one can be a mutualist. An anarchist who supports 'non-compulsory' socialism. Its possible but not very consistent.
(God how I hate the burden of proof. The smallest hole poked in my claim makes me look like a fool and kills my credibility. >:( )
So you're saying non-compulsory socialism relies on those to just contribute without gain? That would be extremely inconsistent.
I suppose there may be a matter of degree involved. As an example China, being a socialist nation, seems to be exhibiting very free market tendencies lately. Even to the point of advocating that their citizens invest in gold. Something that most socialist regimes would find a threatening idea. As a culture they are simply fascinating. I would think that a Laissez-faire approach to economics would ultimately prove too threatening to socialist principles for the two to continue to coexist. A move to one extreme or the other would probably result. Such moves are often frought with conflict both on the individuals intellectual principles as well as an institutional power structure level.
Mama always told me to wear clean underwear in case I got into a gunfight with the government.
nirgrahamUK: jews are bad.
jews are bad.
Well, I never!
nirgrahamUK: These are not socialist principles. socialist principles are; envy, ignorance,parasitism, war, poverty, and that jews are bad.
Don't forget...every socialist has a white Persian cat and a scar along their face. They are simply diabolical.
Can it be agreed upon that anarcho-capitalism promotes personal gain? Then can it be concluded that anarcho-capitalism promotes individualist principles? Then can it be concluded that individualist ambitions squander humanity, as helping others cuts into personal profits?
Can it be agreed upon that socialism promotes societal gain? Then can it be concluded that socialism promotes societal principles? Then can it be concluded that societal principles lead to compulsory action for every citizen, therefore killing liberty?
TelfordUS:Then can it be concluded that individualist ambitions squander humanity, as helping others cuts into personal profits?
Not at all. Profits are not simply monetary numbers.
TelfordUS:Then can it be concluded that societal principles lead to compulsory action for every citizen, therefore killing liberty?
People can engage in voluntary socialism.