"subscribing to socialism"

angelica

farfromglorified wrote:

Subscribing to socialism is a matter of subscribing to ends, not means.

farfromglorified, I have a theoretical question for you. I am fascinated by this one subject. Do you agree that if a mass amount of people want a socialist system that they should have it for themselves? Your issue is with imposing it on those who do not want it, correct? The idea of infringing on others, in terms of belief systems with practical outcomes, is that is makes current actions unethical, all for the sake of some imagined "better" future.

So if humans evolve to a general cooperative state, and cooperatively bring in a socialist way, you would not take issue with that in of itself?

I completely 100% agree that to envision an outcome, and to begin doing unethical things (ie: infringing on or forcing others) to reach that outcome against their will is a flawed premise.

I would be happy to hear from anyone else who has something to say on the subject as well!

Peace.

farfromglorified

angelica wrote:

farfromglorified, I have a theoretical question for you. I am fascinated by this one subject. Do you agree that if a mass amount of people want a socialist system that they should have it for themselves?

Absolutely!

Your issue is with imposing it on those who do not want it, correct?

My primary issue, yes. I also certainly think socialism is foolish for pretty much anyone, but I don't believe I have any right to prevent someone from living in any way that doesn't directly harm me.

In other words, I may see socialism as suicide, but I certainly have no right to stop someone from committing suicide. I only have a right to prevent them from taking me with them.

The idea of infringing on others, in terms of belief systems with practical outcomes, is that is makes current actions unethical, all for the sake of some imagined "better" future.

Exactly. I take issue with those who pretend I have an obligation to their "better future", just as I would support someone else to reject an obligation to my "better future".

So if humans evolve to a general cooperative state, and cooperatively bring in a socialist way, you would not take issue with that in of itself?

Absolutely not, assuming by "cooperative" you actually mean cooperative.

I completely 100% agree that to envision an outcome, and to begin doing unethical things (ie: infringing on or forcing others) to reach that outcome against their will is a flawed premise.

It's not necessarily "a flawed premise", if your actual premise is slavery. A slave-owner who is willing to be a slave is not necessarily operating on flawed premises. Few slave owners, however, wish to be slaves, and, in fact, typically come up with many hillarious and hypocritical justifications regarding why their slaves should be slaves and why they certainly should not be.

If I didn't fully address anything above, let me know.

angelica

farfromglorified wrote:

angelica wrote:

So if humans evolve to a general cooperative state, and cooperatively bring in a socialist way, you would not take issue with that in of itself?

Absolutely not, assuming by "cooperative" you actually mean cooperative.

By cooperative, I mean cooperative. Meaning everything is based on agreement models. In an ethical agreement model, based on actual cooperation, dissention is recognized and resolved, rather than glossed over, denied and minimized, and thereby unconsciously woven into said agreements, in a maladaptive way, distorting "cooperation" into something very different.

I think you and I agree that often what people consider cooperation is what they see on the surface ideally, and meanwhile, they are unconscious of the ways they have justified non-cooperation, manipulation, coersion and infringment.

more to come!

farfromglorified

angelica wrote:

By cooperative, I mean cooperative.

Then of course I would have no problem with your hypothetical. A suicide pact is a cooperative agreement and does not a murder make.

angelica

farfromglorified wrote:

Then of course I would have no problem with your hypothetical. A suicide pact is a cooperative agreement and does not a murder make.

Interesting analogy.

I'm hesitant to ask...... BUT! what do you find "foolish" about a cooperatively adopted socialist system, carried out by those who are evolved enough to actually be cooperative?

farfromglorified

angelica wrote:

Interesting analogy.

It was mostly in jest.

I'm hesitant to ask...... BUT! what do you find "foolish" about a cooperatively adopted socialist system, carried out by those who are evolved enough to actually be cooperative?

I think people now are "evolved enough to actually be cooperative". We see evidence of cooperation now in our business transactions, our personal relationships, our workplaces, even sometimes in the halls of governments. Human beings have been well equipped for cooperative activies for hundreds of thousands of years. Unfortunately, we're also well equipped for coersion and self-delusion. A cooperative mindset isn't really a measure of evolution, in my mind, it's simply a measure of pure thought for which most of us are already equiped.

I simply believe socialism, as an economic system, to be a lousy choice. "Foolish" is really manifested in the application of something that will work counter to your ideals as opposed to in accordance with them. And I think socialism does much to decrease wealth instead of increase it, reject cooperation instead of embracing it, and deny diverse individual wills instead of enabling them. But my beliefs should in no way stop someone who disagrees with me from making it a reality for them.

angelica

farfromglorified wrote:

It was mostly in jest.

Mostly? It was mostly in jest to associate cooperation with suicide in a socialism thread??

"I think people now are "evolved enough to actually be cooperative". We see evidence of cooperation now in our business transactions, our personal relationships, our workplaces, even sometimes in the halls of governments. Human beings have been well equipped for cooperative activies for hundreds of thousands of years. Unfortunately, we're also well equipped for coersion and self-delusion. A cooperative mindset isn't really a measure of evolution, in my mind, it's simply a measure of pure thought for which most of us are already equiped.

I agree that we are cooperative in many functional ways. At the same time, charted human developmental stages show higher levels of human development, where humans operate wholly, and with integrity, as a unified individual system, unlike the general states of fragmentation that exist at this time. The majority at this time, operates in fragments, where one minute one is cooperative, and the next minute competitive or confrontational, based on conditioning and past brain-wiring rather than based on understanding and conscious choice. The more evolved holistic, integrity-based forms of awareness and resulting cooperation that I refer to, by being whole and integrity based, have evolved the ability to resolve dichotomy/contradiction, etc. into one harmonious system that resolves coersion and other such methods that contain fall-out and infringement. So, as our different views point to, "evolved" would be a relative term.

I simply believe socialism, as an economic system, to be a lousy choice. "Foolish" is really manifested in the application of something that will work counter to your ideals as opposed to in accordance with them. And I think socialism does much to decrease wealth instead of increase it, reject cooperation instead of embracing it, and deny diverse individual wills instead of enabling them. But my beliefs should in no way stop someone who disagrees with me from making it a reality for them.

Fair enough. I understand that your ideals and principles are different from my own, or from many other board members who may see socialistic views as consistent with their own principles and ideals.

In certain worldviews, people find they no longer have the choice but to live and operate in service to life, rather than in service of the self. Such individuals are not concerned with increasing wealth, but rather with increasing quality of life for others, in ways that are beyond financial. Also, from such a view, since one recognizes that self/other are the same, true cooperation becomes the only way...one becomes painfully aware of the consequences of options like coersion, manipulation, etc. and thereby naturally resolve the split between cooperation/coersion, with ease.

angelica

farfromglorified wrote:

angelica wrote:

The idea of infringing on others, in terms of belief systems with practical outcomes, is that is makes current actions unethical, all for the sake of some imagined "better" future.

Exactly. I take issue with those who pretend I have an obligation to their "better future", just as I would support someone else to reject an obligation to my "better future".

What I see is that the future doesn't exist. We never have any power in the future. We only have power in the present. Therefore we delude ourselves when we use the "future" to justify doing something unethical in the only time we have...which is NOW. By deluding ourselves in such a way, we disguise our nefarious deeds and hide from our true intentions.

angelica

farfromglorified wrote:

angelica wrote:

I completely 100% agree that to envision an outcome, and to begin doing unethical things (ie: infringing on or forcing others) to reach that outcome against their will is a flawed premise.

It's not necessarily "a flawed premise", if your actual premise is slavery. A slave-owner who is willing to be a slave is not necessarily operating on flawed premises. Few slave owners, however, wish to be slaves, and, in fact, typically come up with many hillarious and hypocritical justifications regarding why their slaves should be slaves and why they certainly should not be.

To me, slavery is a flawed premise. Infringing on others cannot be justified. It is maladaptive, and when we justify infringment, we create negative energetic patterns in our lives that we must live with. And by our justifying the unjustifiable, we keep ourselves blind to the maladapative patterns we create. Hence the fact that there is a lot of "why me?" going on out there on all kinds of levels.

musicismylife78

as far as I am concerned, capitalism is unsustainable. The current system is unsustainable for human, animal or plant life. So either people stop acting like we have some choice "either capitalism or socialism" etc... and just get real about it, we wont do anything positive. Its an either or situation, but its survival versus death.

the current way of life (roads, highways, technology, cars, phones, computers) is unsustainable. It ruins life, it ruins the planet.

We either start tearing up the roads and pavement and concrete, and start dismantling the system right away, or we perish.

The problem was never a democrat or republican issue. Its a societal and civilization issue. I say we take down the entire civilization.

I spent time in a commune. And although I couldnt live there now, its clear to me, thats the way we need to live. I think we need to go back to hunting and gathering. We need to live primitively. We need to abolish the system as we know it.

angelica

radiohead33 wrote:

as far as I am concerned, capitalism is unsustainable. The current system is unsustainable for human, animal or plant life.

Agreed.

kenny olav

socialism is "suicide"?!

i'm sorry, but that sounds ridiculous.

some versions of socialism may approach or be akin to slavery... but do we have use language like 'suicide'?

but you're right, it's foolish... and throughout time has been supported by no one but morons like Einstein, Orwell, Shaw and other dumbasses

jeffbr

radiohead33 wrote:

as I think we need to go back to hunting and gathering. We need to live primitively. We need to abolish the system as we know it.

You are welcome to it. I will not be joining you. Will you attempt to force me to?

musicismylife78

hey if you think building more roads, paving over animal habitats and polluting the earth with more car fumes is sustainable, then by all means! I just think its basic logic.

Its clear our current way of life isnt working. And its also clear, merely recycling or buying a hybrid isnt going to cut it

Abookamongstthemany

Kenny Olav wrote:

socialism is "suicide"?!

i'm sorry, but that sounds ridiculous.

some versions of socialism may approach or be akin to slavery... but do we have use language like 'suicide'?

but you're right, it's foolish... and throughout time has been supported but morons like Einstein, Orwell, Shaw and other dumbasses

Exactly.

Rhinocerous Surprise

radiohead33 wrote:

hey if you think building more roads, paving over animal habitats and polluting the earth with more car fumes is sustainable, then by all means! I just think its basic logic.

Its clear our current way of life isnt working. And its also clear, merely recycling or buying a hybrid isnt going to cut it

If you think a complete restructuring of global society is a) feasible or b) going to stop mankind from running roughshod over nature, you might want to stop and rein in your idealism a little. Your initial problem is that people are never going to give up modern conveniences, or lifestyles. Your second problem is that even if we somehow went back to a hunter/gatherer society, each pocket of civilisation would still rape their little section of land.

angelica

radiohead33 wrote:

Its clear our current way of life isnt working. And its also clear, merely recycling or buying a hybrid isnt going to cut it

Agreed again.

Abookamongstthemany

Rhinocerous Surprise wrote:

If you think a complete restructuring of global society is a) feasible or b) going to stop mankind from running roughshod over nature, you might want to stop and rein in your idealism a little. Your initial problem is that people are never going to give up modern conveniences, or lifestyles. Your second problem is that even if we somehow went back to a hunter/gatherer society, each pocket of civilisation would still rape their little section of land.

What's this 'on topic' shit?

Rhinocerous Surprise

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

What's this 'on topic' shit?

I know, I'm weak.
I have a serious side, I just usually keep it repressed beneath a sheen of utter depravity.
They closed our thread! :eek:

angelica

Rhinocerous Surprise wrote:

If you think a complete restructuring of global society is a) feasible or b) going to stop mankind from running roughshod over nature, you might want to stop and rein in your idealism a little.

I agree. Thinking an external restructuring is going to keep us in check is an illusion.

Any changes people make will take place within.

I do see that as people truly get attuned to life, and themselves from within, and really experience the truth, they will give up conveniences. When they appreciate the true cost of them. I know I've given up many over the years, in service of life.

Trying to encourage or force others to do the same without their making inner changes won't work, however. Not to mention that when we are attempting to force others to change, we reveal we have not done our own inner work.

angelica

Rhinocerous Surprise wrote:

....a sheen....

Rhinocerous Surprise

angelica wrote:

What can I say? I somehow associate the word "Sheen" with "utter depravity". The fact that I'm watching Two & A Half Men right now has nothing to do with it.

angelica

Rhinocerous Surprise wrote:

What can I say? I somehow associate the word "Sheen" with "utter depravity". The fact that I'm watching Two & A Half Men right now has nothing to do with it.

It's just such a hysterical choice of words.... sheen: luster; brightness; radiance



a lustre of utter depravity!!

...a radiance of utter depravity!!!

Rhinocerous Surprise

angelica wrote:

It's just such a hysterical choice of words.... sheen: luster; brightness; radiance



a lustre of utter depravity!!

...a radiance of utter depravity!!!

My depravity shines like the North Star! How else would we expect people to vote for me?

Abookamongstthemany

Rhinocerous Surprise wrote:

I know, I'm weak.
I have a serious side, I just usually keep it repressed beneath a sheen of utter depravity.
They closed our thread! :eek:

I saw! I came here to seek refuge on this socialist island.

Rhinocerous Surprise

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

I saw! I came here to seek refuge on this socialist island.

Posting from Cuba? You're living my dream!

Abookamongstthemany

Rhinocerous Surprise wrote:

Posting from Cuba? You're living my dream!

Shhh, I'm a Castro agent sent to this board to spread the evils of socialism to unsuspecting pearl jam fans and hope we hook them.

Rhinocerous Surprise

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

Shhh, I'm a Castro agent sent to this board to spread the evils of socialism to unsuspecting pearl jam fans and hope we hook them.

We should have known he'd strike the Pearl Jam Message Pit first.

Actually, my dream was to move to Cuba and set up a roller-disco franchise. You in?

Abookamongstthemany

Rhinocerous Surprise wrote:

We should have known he'd strike the Pearl Jam Message Pit first.

Actually, my dream was to move to Cuba and set up a roller-disco franchise. You in?

You shittin me? There's no way I'm passing up on the chance to become a suicidal, socialist slave dolled up in my most glamorous 70's retro gear plus fake eyelashes strutting around on roller skates set to the tune of Disco Inferno!

Rhinocerous Surprise

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

You shittin me? There's no way I'm passing up on the chance to become a suicidal, socialist slave dolled up in my most glamorous 70's retro gear plus fake eyelashes strutting around on roller skates set to the tune of Disco Inferno!

That's the spirit! Nothing screams socialist paradise like a complete submission to disco culture! And oxygen bars!

Abookamongstthemany

Rhinocerous Surprise wrote:

That's the spirit! Nothing screams socialist paradise like a complete submission to disco culture! And oxygen bars!

You always have your finger on the pulse of involuntary euphoria. God save us all.