Socialism Sucks #3
No One Matters
Socialism has long advocated for the welfare of all. It has forever spoken of absolute equality among citizens, that everyone matters equally, that everyone has a right to well being, even if it comes from the backs of those who are working. However, if everyone matters, does anyone really matter at all?
If everyone is smart, no one is smart.
If everyone is strong, no one is strong.
If everyone is skilled, no one is skilled.
If everyone matters, no one matters.
A common statement that I have come across when speaking with socialists/communists, is that they all believe that sacrificing one for the good of the rest is justified. From my perspective, I can see how they think this way. Collectivizing the population strips the identity away from the individual, making them meaningless. In socialism, the fate of an individual lies in the hands of the collective. The individual matters to no one, as there is only the collective. The well being of the individual matters to no one, as there is only the well being of the collective.
Collectivizing the population strips the identity away from the individual, making them meaningless.
In life, there is only the individual. It is always up to oneself to decide how he/she is going to better them self, even if they decide the best to do so is to join some form of socialist collective. Socialism leaves the individual with no right to them self. Instead, it places the rights of the individual in the hands of the collective.
Socialism leaves the individual with no right to them self.
In summary, socialism is the destruction of the individual. Socialism will gladly destroy the individual, so long as it means the well being of the collective. In socialism, everyone matters, so that no one matters.
My Blog: Sailormann
Are you ever going to get out of your echo chamber and read anything by an actual socialist?
Or are you just going to forever argue against a straw man that you've created?
Just asking.
I've been reading heaps lately. Don't worry, this isn't based on anything said by a socialist, but is rather based on what actually occurs. Theory is different to outcome. If you would like me to discuss theory, let me know who you think I should read.
I suggest Kropotkin's The Conquest of Bread and really anything by Bookchin. I also suggest looking into Rojava, because it's libertarian socialism in action and if you do believe in looking at how things pan out in practice they're an important component.
Thanks! I've already read some of Bookchin, so I suppose i'll look into Kropotkin.
I really gotta salute you for broadening your horizons. Not everyone does.
Hey, so as an individualist anarchist, I'm also not really a fan of society being valued over individuals. Thing is, that's what capitalism does. The only individuals that matter under capitalism are the wealthiest ones. The average worker has no real say over their life and must conform to the demands of the corporate elite. If you well and truly are an individualist, surely you can see that.
I see exactly what your saying, but I have to disagree. The average worker is not forced to do anything for anyone under capitalism. The difference is that capitalism provides an incentive to work, and socialism forces you to.
No. Everyone matters, because everyone can contribute to themselves through contributing to the economy, therefore contributing to others. In a free market economy, the simple act of trade means that you are looking after others, even if you don't realize it. A free market essentially means that everyone is linked with everyone, directly, indirectly, whatever, its a very well working economic system. Socialism, communism, etc, all ignore this fact. These ideas do not believe that there is any such thing as a naturally occurring economic system. They believe that capitalism is a man made phenomenon, therefore they insist that it is possible to just overwrite this system with another man made one, one that is supposedly better.
I believe that an individuals right to thrive is taken away in socialism.
Work is forced under capitalism. See, there are these things like "food" and "shelter" that cost money. You sorta need those to live. So, you either work, or you die. There's welfare programs, but they're kept minimal, restrictive and inflexible by design, so as not to compromise capitalist coercion.
You're mistaken that capitalism and the free market are one and the same, or that capitalism is the default economic system. Neither is accurate. Capitalism is a recent invention. At the most generous, capitalism started in the 1600s with Dutch joint stock trade companies. More realistically, it evolved from mercantilism when the industrial revolution happened.
The free market was coined by a dude named Adam Smith as a critique of mercantilism, the then-dominant school of economic thought. What he meant by it was essentially free trade between nations and their colonies. Back then, it was standard practice to ban your colonies from trading with people other than you, you see.
But the modern sense of the free market, as you probably mean it, is businesses making profit oriented decisions and in some way benefiting the whole. Depending on the strain of socialism, this system might remain intact. Syndicalism, for example, still has profit focused businesses, but they're worker owned cooperatives that govern themselves through democratic means.
And I don't know about whatever socialist monolith you're referring to, but as far as I'm concerned there is a natural economic system. It's called the barter system, and there's some damn good reasons why we don't use it anymore..
Socialism allows one to work hard, and then have everything in excess of what they need be taken away from them. Socialism does not allow anyone to gain from their work, and instead puts them in a situation where they have to work. They are less happy, their well being deteriorates.
To say that either of these systems allow anyone to slack off and continue to have a happy and fulfilled life, is blatantly incorrect, not to mention utopian.
We have certainly moved on to better things, but the concept remains the same. Currency has simply become the medium between trade.Your right! Adam Smith simply defined capitalism. He gave it a name. But you have to go further back in time. Before the world was ruled and regulated by Monarchs and Government. The simple idea of capitalism is, as you mention, free trade. Free trade has been going on since the human tribes began to swap items with each other in Africa, and most likely before that as well. Free trade is the reason for the massive progression away from tribalism and commune-like living.
This is a great series of articles, I like it a lot. When is the next piece coming? :)
Its meant to be weekly, but ive been busy for the last few months. Hopefully I can stay as consistent as before.
@sailormann, I gave you a vote!
If you follow me, I will also follow you in return!
Who're you? Buddy Pine?