Comment: Voluntary Socialism

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: The Two Sides are Monopolizing (see in situ)

Voluntary Socialism

I can find many thoughts followed by the act of communicating those thoughts whereby the communication intends to discredit all Socialism, not only the voluntary aspects of socialism, not only the involuntary aspects of socialism, but all of it, every last bit of it, so as to end it, and never let it appear in the minds of mankind ever again, to remove it from the face of the Earth, stomp it out, kill it, and never, ever, allow it back here again.

Those are harsh words.

Please recall the intent of this Topic and once I have finished this present work on Voluntary Socialism my intention is to move onto working with Voluntary Capitalism.

B. Liberty
Voluntary Human Interaction
1. Voluntary Capitalism
2. Voluntary Socialism

Where 1 can find voluntary agreement with 2.

That above is the focus, or intent, here. The idea is to dilute, diffuse, disarm, unravel, and compete with the Fraudulent Conflict.

Disarm this:

A. Crime
Involuntary Human Interaction
1. Involuntary Socialism
2. Involuntary Capitalism

Where 1 is in perpetual conflict with 2

Very few of the players on the right are allowed to question the total evil that is socialism. That cannot be questioned. Socialism is total evil, without question.

I can't argue with that, since the idea here is to find agreement.

Is there, for example, an agreement to be found in the observation that some good things, with good names, have had their good names besmirched, as evil people throw mud on that good name, and is it even possible to agree that good names have suffered such attacks long enough to a point where the good name is tarnished over time?

If that is agreeable, then is that process only applicable to our side, not to their side?

Capitalism, for example, has been under such a persistent attack by evil people as to render the good name of capitalism almost synonymous with torture and mass murder, according to large masses of people, on this planet, who don't know better.

Is it possible, at all, that Socialism has also undergone a similar attack of negative press over time?

I'm asking.

I am asking because this question has arisen in my personal studies. The answer, no matter who asks it, may be found in a book that I have yet to find.

The History of Socialism
Stephen Pearl Andrews

I would like to find that book.

There are two definitions of Socialism, from history, that I have found, and this Topic, and this Reply, on this Forum may communicate those 2 definitions right here.

The idea is to see if there ever was such a thing as Voluntary Socialism and if so, is there something about Voluntary Socialism that is compatible, and agreeable, with Voluntary Capitalism.

It is already well known, it seems to me, that there is one thing that is compatible with Involuntary Capitalism and Involuntary Socialism: both are Involuntary Associations.

The next link is the source of one definition of Socialism, and this is not mine, this is merely words written by someone else, words that I found, and words that are now offered in context of the goals already reported above.

The Science of Society

Socialism Defined (1848):

"What, then, if this be so, is this common element? In what great feature are Protestantism, Democracy, and Socialism identical? I will answer this interrogatory first, and demonstrate the answer afterward. Protestantism, Democracy, and Socialism are identical in the assertion of the Supremacy of the Individual,--a dogma essentially contumacious, revolutionary, and antagonistic to the basic principles of all the older institutions of society, which make the Individual subordinate and subject to the Church, to the State, and to Society respectively. Not only is this supremacy or SOVEREIGNTY OF THE INDIVIDUAL, a common element of all three of these great modern movements, but I will make the still more sweeping assertion that it is substantially the whole of those movements. It is not merely a feature, as I have just denominated it, but the living soul itself, the vital energy, the integral essence or being of them all."

The knee jerk reaction is to stomp out the message by stomping out the speaker.

The roots of socialism are not known by many, while current thoughts and actions by people today, calling themselves socialists, define the current meaning of the word Socialism.

Are there any people now calling themselves Socialists who share the concept of individual sovereignty with any people now calling themselves Capitalists?

Why not, if not?

Item 2:

The Anatomy of Human Destructiveness

In that book is a reference to another definition of Socialism and again the knee jerk reaction is to shoot the messenger so as to censor the message.

Please consider the concept instead.

From a footnote on page 377 in Chapter 12 MALIGNANT AGGRESSION: NECROPHILIA

"For Marx, capital and labor were not merely two economic categories, Capital for him was the manifestation of the past, of labor transformed and amassed into things; labor was the manifestation of life, of human energy applied to nature in the process of transforming it. The choice between capitalism and socialism (as he understood it) amounted to this: Who (what) was to rule over what (whom)? What is dead over what is alive, or what is alive over what is dead? (Cf. E. Fromm, 1963,1968)"

My thinking:

The choice between only A and B is not Liberty.

Liberty is the process of life when criminals no longer produce victims, or the ability for anyone to say no thanks to only A and B, Liberty is the ability to invent a third choice = C.

Liberty is not a choice between only A or B, rather, each individual person is able to respond to such dictates with choice C, D, E, F, G, or anything other than crime.

Whose definition of proper conduct overpowers a voluntary agreement and turns, twists, or spins a voluntary association into an involuntary association?

There are other things I can report on this paper trail, including an obvious division between the Voluntary Socialists like Andrews and Bakunin, to name just two, as Socialism, the very word Socialism, was rejected by the Communists. Socialism at the time still held a voluntary meaning, too much agreement to be of any good for the Communists at the time - in their own words.

That is it for me now, and my intention is to go back in time a little further to offer that middle ground, before moving ahead in time to modern capitalism.

There is, in fact, a middle ground, without doubt, it occurs whenever two people find agreement, where the agreement isn't a willful plan to exploit some hapless other victim.