Quote:
Originally Posted by DanaC
Again, that's not socialism, not really. When we talk about socialism nowadays we are mainly focusing on support or help for those at the bottom at the expense of the more successful. Socialism isn't about supporting those who've sunk, it's about mutuality at a societal level. It's about the successes as much as it's about the fallen. It's about maximising participation in decision making and ensuring natural talent and ability can freely rise, unhindered by social or economic class. It's about removing age old inequalities (in power as much as in income) and organising society in a different way. It's about true democracy.
It's not possible, I don't think, in our world, to organise in a truly mutual fashion, except at a very small scale and in very small groups. It would require everything to be torn down and restarted. Not a pleasant prospect, not a likely one nor indeed a practical one. And for a lot of people, not a desirable one, and that's the rub. Unless everybody wants society to be organised along lines of mutuality, then such mutuality has to either attempt to coexist with the existing system (not possible) or must involve coersion (not desirable).
Of course, this is not exclusive to socialism. Capitalism also involves coersion and is imposed upon those who would wish to live in a differently organised society. The rise of Capital trampled on other ways of living and there were casualties.
|
i tried to read this post......but i'm either too drunk, or it was really all just .....bleh bleh bleh bleh bleh...
I think it might have been a combination of the two......when i re read this tomorrow, I'll know for sure.