Poll: Winston Churchill on Socialism

[Fent]

Molly123 wrote
I'll ask you again, What makes you think that social hierarchy has to be vertical as opposed to horizontal? There are no positions of power over another in a S/C society.

You'll have to expand on what you mean by horizontal hierarchy.


I believe that social hierarchies will inevitably always exist because, not only has this proven to be be historically true, but that people have different degrees of skills and talents. Those with better skills in a given area will rise to the top of the ladder, those with low skills will stay at the bottom. The people at the bottom learn how to become more skilled by emulating the those higher, thus an inevitable hierarchy forms between the the unskilled and the skilled.

[Molly123]

what Marx failed upon was the fundamental understanding of human nature that he tended to idealize upon which ultimately was his undoing.

Could you explain what you mean by this?

[James L Walker]

what Marx failed upon was the fundamental understanding of human nature that he tended to idealize upon which ultimately was his undoing.

Could you explain what you mean by this?

He thought that human beings were naturally reasonable, cooperative, and inherently 'good'.

He was incorrect on all three as history will always show.

[Molly123]

I am by no means anywhere close to resembling popular anarchist socialist motifs that you might be more acquainted with.

I have my very own patented version of anarchism when it concerns my own understanding that I like to separate myself from other anarchists.

I still haven't met an Anarchist I didn't like. No matter what flavor.

How so for the S/C I advocate

SC? Social Communism?

In a previous posting, for sake of ease, I stated I would use S/C to stand for Socialism/Communism, or Socialist/Communist, etc.
[quote]

[Dan~]

There are many different flavors of socialism.
Socialism isn't the devil, but churchill thinks it is.

[James L Walker]

Molly: I still haven't met an Anarchist I didn't like. No matter what flavor.

We shall see. I'm not like most other anarchists.

In a previous posting, for sake of ease, I stated I would use S/C to stand for Socialism/Communism, or Socialist/Communist, etc.

Alright.

[James L Walker]

There are many different flavors of socialism.
Socialism isn't the devil, but churchill thinks it is.

Churchill was a cigar smoking drunk.

[Molly123]

There are many different flavors of socialism.
Socialism isn't the devil, but churchill thinks it is.

Churchill was right to criticize. He was wrong to think that he was criticizing S/C.

[Molly123]

The problem is not social inequality, but the sense of entitlement. If you put the idea in people's heads that it's their god given right to be entitled to something, and that something can't be delivered, then you're always going to have problems. The modern world is rife with envy. Take away the envy and you take away the problem.

How, would you rid a class society of envy and eliminate a sense of entitlement?

Education.
For example, rights like equality are taught values, they aren't inherent in the mind. Equality is taught as a virtue by politicians, commentators and academics everywhere (in the West). The solution, replace the teaching of equality with responsibility and reverence. Teach them as the highest virtues and over the decades the sense of entitlement the lower classes believe they have will disappear.

Who would you teach these values to?

[Molly123]

Molly123 wrote
There have been many classless societies; some of which classes never developed. In those non-stratified societies one would find no meaningful concept of social class, power, or hierarchy. Anthropology shows us that social stratification is not the standard among all societies. Again people make many assumptions about human behavior which they believe are universal and ever present in any social situation. Many times these assumptions are false

Could you provide some examples?

Sure.

Iceland is considered a classless society
Denmark is considered a classless society
Sweden is considered a classless society
Poland for decades was considered a classless society

The Kakadu Tribe is representative of a number of tribes in Australia.

The Quapaw

The Sioux

These tribes were/are not divided into moieties, nor are there any classes.

The Montagnais-Naskapi lived in small bands that, according to the Jesuit Lejeune, "have neither political organization, nor offices, nor dignities, nor any authority, for they only obey their chief through good will toward him,"


"Today, anthropologists and many social scientists vigorously oppose the notion of cultural evolution" "In fact, much anthropological data has suggested that complexity (civilization, population growth and density, specialization, etc.) does not always take the form of hierarchical social organization or stratification." --Wikinfo.

Why do you think many anthropologists and social scientists 'vigorously oppose' what you claim below?:

I believe that social hierarchies will inevitably always exist because, not only has this proven to be be historically true, but that people have different degrees of skills and talents. Those with better skills in a given area will rise to the top of the ladder, those with low skills will stay at the bottom. The people at the bottom learn how to become more skilled by emulating the those higher, thus an inevitable hierarchy forms between the the unskilled and the skilled.

[Molly123]

Sorry Fent for messing up the previous post's quoting .... If this is too confusing, I can redo the post.

[Molly123]

Okay. But picture this scenario: A war-like tribe wants to take over the 'free and equal' society, they have no tolerance for difference, and desire to subjugate all in their path.

OK. But picture this scenario; The vast majority of the world's population, who have all the means of production at their disposal, need to defend themselves from a small minority of people who mean them harm...

I have a hard time taking seriously a threat such as the one you imagine. Maybe if you could explain a bit more why and how you envision this war-like tribe posing such a devastating threat to the vast majority of humanity that society would require a 'standing army', instead of a voluntary army if the need arises.

How do the socialists/communists deal with this?

Anyway each member of society decides to.

Wouldn't the socialists/communists require a standing army to ward off such threats? I think so.

I don't see your scenario as a realistic objection. But, if this were the case, I suppose a S/C society would enlist volunteers to fight as I mentioned above.
I don't think that a standing army would be required.

Then wouldn't this take away the "voluntary" notion of association and also the notion of it being 'free and equal,' wouldn't a stratification of some description have to be put in place so external threats can be warded off?

Nope. How do you see it doing so? Why would a voluntary army have to culturally evolve into a social stratification of status? For that matter, how so even if a standing army is present in a classless society?

In effect, all members of society are equal in a classless S/C society. Work defined by expertise or certain skill levels, or the role of defending oneself voluntarily-- while useful to society at large in the process, might carry social recognition and perhaps even public praise but not status.

[_________]

We shall see. I'm not like most other anarchists.

Anarchists are like snowflakes. In more ways than one.

I don't see your scenario as a realistic objection. But, if this were the case, I suppose a S/C society would enlist volunteers to fight as I mentioned above.
I don't think that a standing army would be required.

Makhno's Black Army and the Free Territory it defended. Bazinga.

In effect, all members of society are equal in a classless S/C society. Work defined by expertise or certain skill levels, or the role of defending oneself voluntarily-- while useful to society at large in the process, might carry social recognition and perhaps even public praise but not status.

Is social recognition and public praise not constitutive of status?

I have quite a few words on this topic in my debate v. Pezermeregild (in the Chamber of Debate).

[James L Walker]

MathIsACircle: Anarchists are like snowflakes. In more ways than one.

Molly: Churchill was right to criticize. He was wrong to think that he was criticizing S/C.

Churchhill was a American public in a time where most of the British government didn't even want to go to war with Hitler.

[Molly123]

Equality restricted only to the most wealthy was what I meant when I was describing the socialism of plutonomy.

I see. I suppose I still wouldn't make such a connection, even remotely. I think I'd call it for what it is. A fascist plutocracy. I don't see the need to associate the word Socialism with it. Too confusing.

The only common denominator here is equality. And even then, I'd have to ask, what do you mean by equality?

I believe the traditional egalitarian definition is equal share of resources, goods, and social status.

Then is this your definition of equality as well?

If so, I still don't see the need to identify S/C with a fascist plutocracy.... for one thing they wouldn't have equal access to wealth, only equal access to protect whatever wealth they have.

As a nihilistic anarchist that I am I don't believe in equality whatsoever.

That's interesting... Do you believe that other people are a means for personal advantage?

Egalitarianism if anything is a useful tool or ploy by statists to make people more dependent upon them.

I think that may be true to a certain extent in some state run egalitarian societies. I don't find it to be true, historically or presently of all egalitarian/state societies.

[Molly123]

We shall see. I'm not like most other anarchists.

Anarchists are like snowflakes. In more ways than one.

I don't see your scenario as a realistic objection. But, if this were the case, I suppose a S/C society would enlist volunteers to fight as I mentioned above.
I don't think that a standing army would be required.

Makhno's Black Army and the Free Territory it defended. Bazinga.

Was Makhno's Black Army needed to defend the vast majority of the world's population in a S/C society?

In effect, all members of society are equal in a classless S/C society. Work defined by expertise or certain skill levels, or the role of defending oneself voluntarily-- while useful to society at large in the process, might carry social recognition and perhaps even public praise but not status.

Is social recognition and public praise not constitutive of status?

No. Not status in the context as I think you may be using it. I can socially recognize an innovator or, publicly praise a soldier, for the social/personal good they've contributed without having to think that what they've done makes them a better person than I or anyone else. In other words, I don't have to afford them a special status in society to appreciate what they've done.

I have quite a few words on this topic in my debate v. Pezermeregild (in the Chamber of Debate).

Hey, thanks for this... I'd be very interested to read what you've written. I'll check it out soon.

[_________]

Was Makhno's Black Army needed to defend the vast majority of the world's population in a S/C society

A would be a/c society.

No. Not status in the context as I think you may be using it. I can socially recognize an innovator or, publicly praise a soldier, for the social/personal good they've contributed without having to think that what they've done makes them a better person than I or anyone else. In other words, I don't have to afford them a special status in society to appreciate what they've done.

This seems more semantic than anything.

[Molly123]

Was Makhno's Black Army needed to defend the vast majority of the world's population in a S/C society?

A would be a/c society.

Are you claiming that Makhno's Black Army was defending the vast majority of the world's population in an established S/C society? I don't remember that war and I'm part of the vast majority. I don't think a comparison can be had; In that roughly 100,000 men, and what.. even several million peasants?, can in all reasonableness, be considered the vast majority of the world's population.

A tribe of war-like people wanting to kill off the vast majority of the world's population living in a S/C society, and in attempting to do so, that vast majority would have to mandate a standing army to defend against this onslaught and any future threat, ergo; social oppression, social class status and social positions of power are a result as a matter of fact...was the claim made. I'm sorry, but, in lieu of some expounding, I don't find that to be a reasoned out objection. It's a non-starter. Even still, I did leave a few comments in response.


I tried to find your comments on this in the debate section you mentioned. Was it the Government vs. Anarchism one? My eyes broke trying to scan and find your comments on social esteem. Maybe you could direct me to them?

[James L Walker]

Equality restricted only to the most wealthy was what I meant when I was describing the socialism of plutonomy.

I see. I suppose I still wouldn't make such a connection, even remotely. I think I'd call it for what it is. A fascist plutocracy. I don't see the need to associate the word Socialism with it. Too confusing.

The only common denominator here is equality. And even then, I'd have to ask, what do you mean by equality?

I believe the traditional egalitarian definition is equal share of resources, goods, and social status.

Then is this your definition of equality as well?

If so, I still don't see the need to identify S/C with a fascist plutocracy.... for one thing they wouldn't have equal access to wealth, only equal access to protect whatever wealth they have.

As a nihilistic anarchist that I am I don't believe in equality whatsoever.

That's interesting... Do you believe that other people are a means for personal advantage?

Egalitarianism if anything is a useful tool or ploy by statists to make people more dependent upon them.

I think that may be true to a certain extent in some state run egalitarian societies. I don't find it to be true, historically or presently of all egalitarian/state societies.

I see. I suppose I still wouldn't make such a connection, even remotely. I think I'd call it for what it is. A fascist plutocracy. I don't see the need to associate the word Socialism with it. Too confusing.

I suppose. Under that context I was just trying to illustrate the notion of how the very wealthy privatize all profits and socialize the losses. They don't mind protectionism as long as it is only them that is being protected from becoming insolvent.

Then is this your definition of equality as well?

If so, I still don't see the need to identify S/C with a fascist plutocracy.... for one thing they wouldn't have equal access to wealth, only equal access to protect whatever wealth they have.

The fundamental flaw of Socialist Communism is it's inherent corruptibility even when trying to orchestrate a entirely egalitarian society.

That's interesting... Do you believe that other people are a means for personal advantage?

Yes, I do. I'm a anarchist by default because I have no respect for any sort of authority in whatever form or disguise it comes under. I have no respect for any rules because I desire not to be ruled.

I have no respect for authority because I have no desired to be controlled.

One might say the type of anarchism I support would be one of total chaos in that it is fundamentally what I aspire towards. Chaos being that of a formless world without any direction other than what individuals might decide for themselves. I seek the totality of such a existence for the entire globe.

I have a firm respect for the entropic process.

I'm just your typical heretical blasphemer. Pay no attention over here.

I think that may be true to a certain extent in some state run egalitarian societies. I don't find it to be true, historically or presently of all egalitarian/state societies.

Depends on the historical environment in that each one is distinct and separate from the other.

[Molly123]

No society can survive without rules and S/C will be no exception. Although I don't consider a principled rule to be the equivalent of an enforced law. If the vast majority of humanity is in agreement with the social living arrangements contained within the ideology of S/C, then that conscious decision and agreement will dictate their behavior.

Okay, but it's that very process of coming to agreement that's the problem. People will have varying views on what the social arrangements ought to be, and right there you have recipe for conflict.

The agreement is made based upon the prioritized social goals already contained within the doctrines of S/C. So, the problem wouldn't be found in the agreement between people over these so-called rules of society as you first implied. However, if you're talking about the social engineering that will be taking place in society in an effort to achieve these social goals (at the neighborhood/community, local, area, district, international levels), then I have to agree with you in that there may, and probably will, be conflicting ideas on how that might be set in motion. However, these conflicts don't have to involve violence or an automatic stratification of society into classes and social positions of power over another. There are many means for settling disputes in a S/C society that don't involve what you have deemed systemic and an inescapable result.

[Molly123]

Depends on the historical environment in that each one is distinct and separate from the other.

Agreed. I would add economic environment as well, if you did not mean for the historical environment to include the social relations to production..
But, that's probably the Marx in me..

[Molly123]

what Marx failed upon was the fundamental understanding of human nature that he tended to idealize upon which ultimately was his undoing.

He thought that human beings were naturally reasonable, cooperative, and inherently 'good'.

He was incorrect on all three as history will always show.

Do you think you could provide a quote from Marx's works on this? Or point me in the direction of his works containing this expression of 'Human Nature'?

[_________]

Are you claiming that Makhno's Black Army was defending the vast majority of the world's population in an established S/C society? I don't remember that war and I'm part of the vast majority. I don't think a comparison can be had; In that roughly 100,000 men, and what.. even several million peasants?, can in all reasonableness, be considered the vast majority of the world's population.

No, certainly not a world population. But I am saying those numbers can, to an extent, be scaled.

A tribe of war-like people wanting to kill off the vast majority of the world's population living in a S/C society, and in attempting to do so, that vast majority would have to mandate a standing army to defend against this onslaught and any future threat, ergo; social oppression, social class status and social positions of power are a result as a matter of fact...was the claim made. I'm sorry, but, in lieu of some expounding, I don't find that to be a reasoned out objection. It's a non-starter. Even still, I did leave a few comments in response.

Perhaps one is absurd, but I find it intriguing that, despite every contrary opinion they face, anarchists, communists and socialists alike (at least the modern ones) seem to believe that their brand of society is precisely what man wants, that opposing factions will not rise in masses.

I tried to find your comments on this in the debate section you mentioned. Was it the Government vs. Anarchism one? My eyes broke trying to scan and find your comments on social esteem. Maybe you could direct me to them?

Not the esteem, (I knew I should have separated that) but rather on the ambiguous idealogical nature of theoretical/hypothetical societies in general--this postulation that the various forms of socialism, communism, anarchism and their multitudinous hyphenated offspring would work, contrary to their history of failing miserably when their pivotal contention of man consistently choosing to be "morally upright" proves disastrously wrong, seems naive at best.

That said, and since I'm not attempting to battle anarchism here, I will admit to communist leanings--there stand quite a few communist concepts that I advocate with all my being, though in some areas I lean more towards Plato's Republic (i.e. redistribution of surplus wealth, the surplus determined after skimming the tops off of a predetermined proportional personal possession limit [say 1.5-2x the average--Plato's was not so strict]).

I just feel in order to incorporate these concepts into modern society, we cannot simply take the whole book, as it were, and pound it like so many theologians. We must prove these concepts in practical real-world scenarios, not simply mull them over in thought experiments and refer to obscure civilizations of the past, all significant data of which is recorded through the rose tinted eyes of quasi-worshipers.

In short, there are great ideas, or rather, there are great ingredients...but we need to put these concepts in a philosophical high-powered centrifuge, separating the ingredients to a manageable point for us to concoct a pragmatic, palatable thesis that does not fall so easily in real world application.

[Molly123]

This seems more semantic than anything.

Maybe I should be clearer.. It's a conscious decision. A principle to follow that, as a result of my agreement with, will dictate my behavior and perspective on the matter. Fent was spot on. It is a conscious value judgment. I value this type of society for self interested reasons, as well as mutually beneficial ones, over that type of society.

I can feel appreciative for a personal good someone does for me, or for a social good someone does for society as a whole, or rely on expertise, without granting people and their accomplishments a justification for higher social class status or social positions of power.

I would realize that you wanted to do this and it was you that chose to pursue it. Who better to decide what you want to do than you? I chose to do something different. We value equality in the sense that the individual is to be self determined. On another note, and in addition to the fact that society is making a conscious effort to keep themselves classless... it is society (other human beings) which, to a large degree, enabled you to do this wonderful thing.

What if it were I who came up with the innovation, courage, or expertise? Would I innately or intuitively sense an entitlement to merit some special recognition from society? Isn't it in my human nature to desire this when my skills are extremely useful to society? Meritocracy rearing it's head..in the form of elitism. I don't find this line of argument very convincing either.

[Molly123]

No, certainly not a world population. But I am saying those numbers can, to an extent, be scaled.

I suppose you could, but it would be irrelevant. It must be the vast majority of humanity that wants S/C or S/C will not come about and there can be no downsizing. It must be the vast majority.

Perhaps one is absurd, but I find it intriguing that, despite every contrary opinion they face, anarchists, communists and socialists alike (at least the modern ones) seem to believe that their brand of society is precisely what man wants, that opposing factions will not rise in masses.

Holding that a certain viable social system, even while not presently feasible, is better than other alternatives or the present social system one might be living under, and stating that it will take the vast majority of the world's population to bring this society about, is not the same thing as claiming that all of humanity wants just that precise social system and I've never claimed otherwise. Humanity is nowhere near ready to establish S/C.

but rather on the ambiguous idealogical nature of theoretical/hypothetical societies in general

This is a philosophy discussion board. The theoretical and hypothetical would seem to fit right in.

--this postulation that the various forms of socialism, communism, anarchism and their multitudinous hyphenated offspring would work, contrary to their history of failing miserably when their pivotal contention of man consistently choosing to be "morally upright" proves disastrously wrong, seems naive at best.

Where in our history has the S/C I advocate failed miserably? I'm not discussing any other form of social organization, so no need to toss in those societies that were State Capitalist, Nationalist, Totalitarian, Fascist, Dictatorships, etc. These are not comparisons to S/C.

Consistently choosing to be morally upright proves disastrously wrong? Really? When was the last time you raped an 8 year old? Humans consistently act according to their moral values everyday.

That said, and since I'm not attempting to battle anarchism here, I will admit to communist leanings--there stand quite a few communist concepts that I advocate with all my being, though in some areas I lean more towards Plato's Republic (i.e. redistribution of surplus wealth, the surplus determined after skimming the tops off of a predetermined proportional personal possession limit [say 1.5-2x the average--Plato's was not so strict]).

I did read over your debate comments -- and would be more than willing to answer those complaints -- if that's possible or desirable for you? Just let me know and we'll have at it.

In the meantime, I would be very interested in hearing what communist leanings you advocate and more about your idea of a capped possession limit, if you'd care to elaborate?

I just feel in order to incorporate these concepts into modern society, we cannot simply take the whole book, as it were, and pound it like so many theologians. We must prove these concepts in practical real-world scenarios, not simply mull them over in thought experiments and refer to obscure civilizations of the past, all significant data of which is recorded through the rose tinted eyes of quasi-worshipers.

Well, we are discussing political philosophy-and I've always thought it best to consider all of our viable options. I'm not against reformist measures. Although, I would greatly prefer to abolish class, money, and private ownership, that's not feasible at this time in history. That's not to say that I'm not willing to put S/C on the table and defend its theoretical doctrines or discuss the viability of such a social system. Like I said, we're in a philosophy forum.

The last sentence I sniped -- Sorry, but I don't read rose tinted opinion. If I provide a citation-it'll be from a creditable source.

In short, there are great ideas, or rather, there are great ingredients...but we need to put these concepts in a philosophical high-powered centrifuge, separating the ingredients to a manageable point for us to concoct a pragmatic, palatable thesis that does not fall so easily in real world application.

So, what forms of society would you like to see replaced and by what ingredients?