Can a Socialist community survive within a Capitalistic society? Why or why not?
Can a Capitalistic community survive with a Socialistic society? Why or why not?
What is the possibility of Free Market Capitalists and Socialists to join forces against Corporatism? Is this feasible?
"Can a Socialist community survive within a Capitalistic society? Why or why not?"
No, a socialistic community is an oximoron. There can be a socialistic SOCIETY but not communtiy, the closes thing you can get is a mutualistic society. In order for it to be a community in my eyes it must be voluntary, socialism is not voluntary.
"Can a Capitalistic community survive with a Socialistic society? Why or why not?"
Yes if the capitalistic community was isolationist. If not then the socialistic society would drag it down and kill it.
"What is the possibility of Free Market Capitalists and Socialists to join forces against Corporatism? Is this feasible?"
Its a possibility in the short run if you played it right, it would be difficult however. If the fight dragged out then there might be one very f***ed up half breed of an ideology as the two ideologies fuse together over time. If the fight ended within a few years however and the coalition was victorious then fighting would resume rather quickly
Thanks for your perspective. This thread was prompted by the following quote:
"The difference between libertarianism and socialism is that libertarians will tolerate the existence of a socialist community, but socialists can't tolerate a libertarian community." – David D. Boaz (1997)
I am curious to hear others thoughts on the questions poised. The Boaz quote suggests a socialist community can exist within a capitalist society.
ViennaSausage:I am curious to hear others thoughts on the questions poised. The Boaz quote suggests a socialist community can exist within a capitalist society.
It already does. It's called a family. Under libertarianism, a group of people can voluntarily organize and gather into whatever entities and under whatever rules they want, as long as they leave everyone else (and their property) alone, i.e. they only engage in voluntary exchanges with the outside world.
Z.
It already does, it's called a Co-op.
Absolutely. The socialist government loves capitalist communities, because they want to tax them.
No. We are very careful who we get into bed with.
z1235:It already does. It's called a family.
Does this imply that families are socialistic by nature? Granted this form of socialism would be voluntary.
On a slight tangent, how does the economics of a family work? The Mom and Dad do all the work, yet the kids get to live off the parents.
"On a slight tangent, how does the economics of a family work? The Mom and Dad do all the work, yet the kids get to live off the parents"
Yes, and? The parents percieve the benefits of their children recieving a large amount of their income and so they spend it on them. The parents either feel they have a duty that must be met or that the love and enjoyment they recieve from the family is great enough ECT. In today's developed societies there is also the want of many parents to have someone to take care of them when they become old, although admittedly this is mostly a secondary concern, and in more underdeveloped and traditional societies children are a form of financial security when the parents become too old to work.... But for the modern family in the developed region children are simply there for percieved pleasure and love.
ViennaSausage:Does this imply that families are socialistic by nature? Granted this form of socialism would be voluntary. On a slight tangent, how does the economics of a family work? The Mom and Dad do all the work, yet the kids get to live off the parents.
Families could be socialist, capitalist, feudalist, communist, for all I care. Forget families, you can enter into whatever voluntary relationship you want with one (or more) people (corporate, cooperative, socialist, communist, door-knob-worshiping, masochist, slave-master, etc.) as long as you leave me and my property alone, i.e. your "entity" enters into strictly voluntary exchanges with the rest of the world. Libertarianism/voluntarism is the ONLY societal structure that allows for such freedoms. Socialism, not so much.
I'd say you can't really make a good analogy between the family and socialism.
A family is like socialism because parents use force against children, either by spanking them or restraining them from playing with dangerous objects or putting them in their room.
The family can work because there is a parental instinct for a mother(and to a lesser extent, a father) to care for her chilrdren due to evolutionary forces. Rulers don't have this instinct for their subjects.
Another problem with the analogy is that children can't take care of themselves while citizens in a statist nation can make decisions for themselves.
PirateRothbard:Another problem with the analogy is that children can't take care of themselves while citizens in a statist nation can make decisions for themselves.
Perhaps the analogy holds, but in a somewhat pejorative manner. From the the statist point of view, people can't make decisions for themselves, and must have government make the decision for them.
It is useful to point out that the only reason parenthood works is because there is a biological imperative to take care of one's offspring. This does not carry over to the parent-state. And even parents have to let their children become independent sometime...
"It is useful to point out that the only reason parenthood works is because there is a biological imperative to take care of one's offspring. This does not carry over to the parent-state."
Furthermore while the calculation problem still exist, it exists with such an excess that it doesnt matter, and furthermore parents are far more likely to know their children, and how to do things directly benefiting them, than the utter chaos of the state which is exceedingly large and discontected to everything.
Snowflake:...the only reason parenthood works is because there is a biological imperative to take care of one's offspring.
Adoption makes this demonstrably wrong.
I think a Capitalist society (a true one) would either prevent a socialist one from rising due to equality, efficiency and prosperity. Capitalism within socialism has existed in small forms or run by the state itself. That's why currency exists in socialist countries.
Cooperation? Sure, as long as it isn't on economic issues. For example, if Austrian libertarians and socialist libertarian or social democrats want to legalize drugs, I see no problem with organizing together for that purpose. I'm sure as a plus we'd even influence them.
Freedom has always been the only route to progress.
Libertyandlife:I think a Capitalist society (a true one) would either prevent a socialist one from rising due to equality, efficiency and prosperity.
Please explain how a "true" Capitalist society could "prevent" any group of people from organizing in any way it sees fit, including a 100% communist commune.
z1235:Adoption makes this demonstrably wrong. Its not wrong. Your observation only proves that we care about other people's children as well, which I fully agree with. I feel very strong emotional/protectionist impulses when someone brings their baby to the office. Human beings seem to be biologically hardwired to care about kids. My point is that the state does not have this biological impulse, so the analogy of parent-state is faulty.
z1235:Adoption makes this demonstrably wrong.
z1235:Please explain how a "true" Capitalist society could "prevent" any group of people from organizing in any way it sees fit, including a 100% communist commune.
Snowflake:Ancap doesn't require that you assert your own property rights, just that you don't attack other's.
By any chance, do you have some references for this statement. It's a simple yet interesting take on Ancap.