Socialism, Anarchy and Ideal Government

By Daniel Miessler on June 5th, 2008: Tagged as Government | Philosophy

anarchy_neat

The goal of socialism should be to iterate itself out of existence. Its purpose is to keep negative aspects of human behavior in check for the common good, but only temporarily.

Socialism a control system necessitated by the presence of severe human flaws. This is to say, if any semblance of equality is to be attained given these primal vices, some sort of socialism will be required.

But it is not an ideal. In fact it’s the opposite, and every responsible proponent of the ideology should realize that the goal of socialism should be to allow its beneficiaries to grow to the point that it’s no longer needed.

You can’t reach the ultimate goal of anarchy (self rule) or its younger brother, libertarianism, without the highest levels of individual responsibility and underlying concepts of mutual respect and connectedness. These are precisely the characteristics that immature and primal societies lack, hence the need for intervention.

So socialism is an intermediary phase between young, primal societies (which need the most controls) and those that require no interference from the state.

The goal of socialism should ultimately be anarchy.:

  • Digg
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • description
  • Google
  • del.icio.us
  • TwitThis
  • Facebook
  • MySpace
  • E-mail this story to a friend!
  • Print this article!

Viewing 9 Comments

    • ^
    • v

    oo, another who sees...

    • ^
    • v

    If we've learned ANYTHING from history, we've learned that greed is a part of the human condition. To assume that this will ever change is something I can't do.

    • ^
    • v

    I'm glad to see that you have about the same understanding of socialism as I do. Most people do not understand it at all, like the above poster. Socialism is an ideal. Ideals are just that, ideals. There is no expectation that they will actually be reached, and there are many different ways to work towards that ideal.
    To me, and most socialists I have met, socialism is the ideal of working towards anarchy. Not anarchy in the sense of no government, but anarchy in the sense of not needing government.
    This is an important distinction, because it makes living the life of a socialist a good thing for any society. For example, I don't need a police officer to check the road to make sure I am driving safely, because I do it anyways. I don't do it because it is the law, and driving safely and obeying the law are not always the same thing, but because it is the "right" thing to do.
    When you are being considerate to others, and contributing to your community voluntarily you are eliminating the need to actually have a government, and are thus working towards the socialist ideal. You are working towards the ideal of not needing a government because everyone is voluntarily supporting their community.

    • ^
    • v

    @Maxo


    Actually, I kind of just stumbled on the whole "intermediate step concept". I hadn't made that connection before my late night walk last night.


    Are you sure we're synced on that? I'm saying socialism ISN'T an ideal, and that the opposite is, but that socialism enables its opposite.

    • ^
    • v

    @Maxo,


    I understand what Daniel wrote, and I understand what you wrote: "To me, and most socialists I have met, socialism is the ideal of working towards anarchy. Not anarchy in the sense of no government, but anarchy in the sense of not needing government."


    MY statement that greed is a part of the human condition was meant to be understood to be a statement that I do not believe that we will ever (in our lifetimes ... and probably not EVER) reach a point that humanity without government is better overall than humanity WITH government.


    I agree completely that humanity as a whole would be better if everyone lived as you do (doing the "right" thing always) and I too try to live up to this ideal. But, I don't pretend that everyone will ever live like this. Keep in mind that the vast majority of people DO live like this (some of them do so because we have laws .. others do so because they understand that it is the best for humanity as a whole -- call it the Golden Rule if you like). But, that small minority that doesn't behave themselves WITH laws is not going to behave themselves WITHOUT laws. It's just not going to happen. We will ALWAYS need rules and enforcers of those rules.

    • ^
    • v

    What evidence do you have that socialism keeps negative aspects of human behavior in check? Why do human flaws necessitate a "control system"? Are there beneficiaries of socialism? I think not. Anyone that benefits from state handouts only does so at the expense of whomever the state stole from. The state doesn't produce anything, it can only steal. Any such system set up to regulate humans can only be run by other imperfect humans at the expense of personal liberty. I would argue that socialism exacerbates human flaws and keeps all the wonderful human attributes from flourishing. Most of the world doesn't have a legacy or tradition of individuality like the West, but that doesn't mean they need a socialist state to rule over them to lift them out of the darkness, so to speak.


    The idea doesn't lead to peaceful interaction between humans, mainly because it involves one set of "smarter" humans telling another set how to live. If the "dumb" humans don't cooperate they get killed or thrown in prison. History shows this. Socialism is no path to liberty. If you leave humans to themselves, good things happen. There will still be bad people doing bad things, but a free market will offer better means of protection and minimize the effects of forceful intervention (crime) over time. A socialist state (any state) is a vehicle for bad people to do bad things. In fact it gives them a monopoly to do so.


    The argument against socialism and central planning is made much better by Frederic Bastiat in "The Law" or in "Economic Harmonies". Ludwig von Mises wrote a book called "Socialism", but I haven't read it yet. "Human Action" is highly recommended.


    oh, and for passersby...anarchy means no state, not no law. Private law enforcement and judges would do a better job at protecting you than the state monopoly does now. Checkout "Chaos Theory" by Robert Murphy or "Democracy: the God that Failed" by Hoppe. Also, "For a New Liberty" by Rothbard is good.

    • ^
    • v

    @ Daniel


    Maybe we are on two different pages. I've always looked at socialism as an ideal. The usual argument against socialism is that it could never work. I think that argument is invalid because it misses the point, and it usually end with the conclusion, "...so we should never try." But maybe you are right. Socialism may be action to work towards the unachievable realism of anarchy. ...


    @ Carl


    I took your comment to be the typical response towards socialism, humans are greedy, always will be, so we might as well give up on getting along and use the Social Darwinistic ideal of survival of the fittest, man benefits the most if he fights each other for his own personal gain and the best man wins.
    Most socialists realize that we will never "just get along", but are committed to fighting those who work to make sure we aren't just getting along.


    To me, the right balance is a fair playing field where the only obstacle to success is yourself. When artificial factors inhibit success, our society loses great people to oppression. How many geniuses go on to push drugs because they were born in to the wrong family, went to the wrong schools, and where constantly belittled and shot down by those who looked at him/her and told them they where a loser?

    • ^
    • v

    So I've thought about it and would like to offer some clarification on my views.
    Anarchy, as it relates to government, simply means the lack of government. It doesn't have any specific meaning beyond that. It doesn't mean people do or don't get along.
    Socialism is not specific either. It only means that in general people need to work together for the common good. There are many ways to accomplish that. You can do it through a totalitarian state like most implementations of communism. You could do it through a representative democracy, where people elect officials to decide what is best for the public, like we do. It could also exist in a Utopian anarchy, like we have been discussing.
    Most people I have met that describe themselves as socialists would like to see the third version.

    • ^
    • v

    Well this explains why you are for Obama... and should never have Ron Paul's face anyplace on your blog..


    UGH

 

Trackbacks

(Trackback URL)

  • More on Socialism and Libertarianism

    10/06/08 at 2:18 AM

    [...] few days ago I wrote a post about government that I thought was moderately decent. An online buddy, Jon ...

  • Obama’s New Plan? | dmiessler.com

    08/11/08 at 3:29 PM

    [...] it goes back to my comments on Socialism, Libertarianism, and ideal government. This type of program is necessary to ...

close Reblog this comment
Powered by Disqus · Learn more
blog comments powered by Disqus

My Twitter Microblog

    Discovered Content


    About dmiessler.com

    This site is an avatar for my own self-assigned life purpose--an attempt to model the world in the most accurate way possible, and to do so without bias or fear of unpleasant truth. I desire to develop, articulate, and perpetually improve models of how things work, and then to use that understanding to increase happiness and reduce suffering. I seek those on similar paths and thrive on sharing an appreciation of the interesting and beautiful with others.



    Blog
    Study
    Writing
    Infosec
    Technology
    Politics

            

    Top Original Content


    Security & Technology

    Philosophy & Science

    Culture & Society

    Blog Archives