"subscribing to socialism"

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 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 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.

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.

radiohead33 wrote:

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

Agreed.

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.

Rhinocerous Surprise wrote:

....a sheen....