Socialist Party

Not all socialism is state sponsored authoritarianism, read Bakunin.

Heh. And we are practicing "capitalism" under the aegis of a service that can WIPE EVERYTHING YOU "OWN". No questions asked. No recourse available. How do you like them nannies?

Yeesh. Get the stick out of the b-hole, man. I was trying to lighten things up. You're trying too hard.
It was more of an existential question, not an economic one. "Worth" is only a word, after all. Perhaps in the eyes of god or the flying spaghetti monster, we are all worth the same. Who knows? That's why I said it "could" be true.

And at least I personally aren't condemning your disagreement with socialism. Hell, I never even said I'ma socialist myself, in a lot of situations it's just not the most efficient way to go. I just don't agree with your means to attack the idea. The point is none of the real practical issues of applying socialist principles to a society even got debated, only the logic behind the general idea, which in the end is really a matter of value conflict and isn't too useful. It simplifies things too much.

Oi, this is tiring. Not going to click on a forum link that has the word "socialism" in it for a while.

I like the old school ideological banter here, takes me back to being an undergrad. Why not try some of the opiate of the peoples, ya'll:

Tibetan Buddhism representin' here -- laying down fatt stupas and madd tantra science. Check Milarepa Land Trust for Second Life sites where you can discuss dialectical materialism under the benevolent painting of a cave hermit, long dead before our socialist friends in China and Russia executed thousands of monks and nuns in Tibet, Xinjiang and Mongolia, 1930s onward.

Thanks for the memories guys!

Also, Canada is not socialist: we're selling out like silly right now -- oil, gas, privatizing healthcare, you name it, we'll keep feeding the hegemon to the south until we're nekkid.

http://flyingmonks.blogspot.com/

That's right. Finland's possibly the most competitive country in the world now, with the United States being second to it, and it's a democratic socialist state. It's also a completely transparent government, which means the Finnish government can read my mail but I can read the Prime Minister's mail if I wanted to. It's also one of the few countries where you can personally own a AK-47, because of the Big Bears next door, and have a silencer attached, because of environmental concerns. You can't have those in the United States unless you hop through a lot of bureaucracy.

It would be interesting to see what a socialist system in Second Life would look like.

- Are you forming a political bloc toward furthering some as yet undefined goal?

- Would you use a carrot or a stick to influence those outside your group?


There is no real business regulation in-world. There seems to be absolutely nothing to prevent industry cartels. Perhaps this is acceptable though, considering the incredible financial risk inherent to this virtual world.

For instance - consider what would happen if five top names in any industry decided to provide their wares for free. Such action in a few key markets could destroy much of the economic incentive of Second Life.

I shall watch from the sidelines with fascination.


Edited to add: I have a great deal of respect for Ayn Rand. It seems that a candlemaking guild has more to fear from her than say, the inventor of a lightbulb. Perhaps that is how it should be.

Then you don't know me.

Puntifuss, you've got to give me something to respond to. That was my original point and it still stands. Start with the basics - where are you coming from? Aristotle, Confucius, Aquinas, Locke, Smith, Spinoza, Comte, Nietzche, James, Heidegger, Forrest, Rorty, what? And who are you throwing puffballs at? Abelard, Jefferson, Marx, Hegel, Bakunin, Lenin, Trotsky, Gramsci, Mao, Che, who? This isn't just a list of names, these are people from both sides who have been-there, done-that before you - and you give no clue as to what your agenda is.

What are you building on? And what are you saying? "Nanny state" might be a cute turn-of-the-phrase, but it really doesn't say anything except "look at me, I'm cleverly beating up on the socialist who started the thread." That's kind of boring.

Give us something besides tired rhetoric and a flip good-bye.

If you were to offer me a house (not that I need one), I feel like I would be entering a unspoken/informal social but not neccessarily an economic contract with you. A contract in which you have a lot of power and I have none. For example, you could delete the house and ban me from the land. Even thought I might not say anything about it, it would influence my actions and thoughts within such a party. Odd how such a kind guesture can sow the seeds of future turmoil.

You mght start by laying out the framework here, and once you work out the kinks, implement it in SL. For example, is this going to be a democratic socialism? communism? etc.

While I personally lean towards socialism, I think that the odds are stacked against it in SL. Anyone can sell (almost) anything to anybody, anywhere. So, how do you prevent a few individuals from personally profitting by selling goods produced by the common group to other people in SL. Also property is SL is ultimately based upon property in FL. Who is actually paying real money for the land for this experiment? And how do you intend to share power whithin such a group? Otherwise I think it might just end up as just another group or play-socialism.

Socialism in SL, as you say, is going to be somewhat different than typical socialism. Due to the structure of the game, there will be some flaws and imperfections, but no governing system in RL or SL is perfect, either.

Personally, I would like to see the SPSL as a catalyst for activism in the real world, by encouraging and informing people. In the last few days I've set up a meeting building that we can use to hold discussion and social events, but I would like to get more members before making any major decisions on our direction.

For clarification, the socialism we endorse is libertarian socialist, which supports the decentralization/minimization of government power, and the increase of personal freedom and democracy. This increase in freedom includes the social ownership of the means of production. To quote Chomsky, "Personally, I'm in favor of democracy, which means that the central institutions of society have to be under popular control. Now, under capitalism, we can't have democracy by definition. Capitalism is a system in which the central institutions of society are in principle under autocratic control."

Contact me in game to comment, condemn, or contribute.

Libertarian Socialism? So you're anarchists?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism

I shall... respect your wishes, however in-world I contact essentially no one. I am too busy struggling to create content to socialise (no pun or satire intended).

While not one to go into great detail with regard to my first life, here in Second Life I am plainly here to make profit. To say otherwise would be a lie. Yet I try to do so in a community minded, honourable, respectful manner.

I find people with viewpoints other than my own fascinating - I feel it is a shame that you won't expound on your ideas here. While perhaps I can't tame the rest of the forum, certainly you won't get disrespect from me.

I do hope you change your mind about presenting your ideas within the forums.

There is no worse tyranny than to force a man to pay for what he does not want merely because you think it would be good for him. – Robert Heinlein [/QUOTE]

Personally I can think of a lot of much worse tyrannies than that. How about being sent to the gulag for your opinion, or sent to the concentration camp because your grandpa was Jewish? Or, for a more American example, being sent to jail for making love to another adult? Every government in history has made people pay for things that the government wanted the citizens (or more often subjects) to have. Just think of things like car airbags and shoulder belts. Calling that tyranny is whining. Real tyranny exists. Calling it tyranny every time you don't get your way is juvenile.

Well, quite; Heinlein is not exactly a serious political theorist. The fact that he wrote some science fiction books that referred to political themes doesn't mean a lot.

You just perfectly stated the current USA regime. Good job!

By the way where do I sign up to be a SL socialist? It works in the Scandinavian countries so why not here?

It's not that I don't want to express my opinion in the forums, it's just less convenient for me.

Also, anarchism is a subset of libertarian socialism, but not all libertarian socialists are pure anarchists. For example, some libertarian socialists believe in small government, but anarchists believe in it's complete abolition. Wikipedia isn't as accurate as it could be in regards to political science. Most socialists also prefer the term libertarian socialist to just "socialist" as it prevents being labeled as a Stalinist or some other misnomer.

One form of anarchism is subset of libertarian socialism. There are many others that go beyond socialism - whatever the flavor. Most anarchists do not, as a rule, believe in "the abolition of government". Only socialists, democrats, monarchists, fascists, and other non-anarchists make that claim about anarchism.

Anarchists believe in a comprehensive redefinition of goverment, in terms of its objectives, methods, internal dynamics, etc. - so that it coheres with the elimination of hierarchy and linear authority.

Anarchists, atleast the major thinkers like Goldman or Kropotkin, believe in the abolition of the state, but the rule of a vast federation of democratic workers associations. Some anarchists would be insulted if you called that government. (I did leave out the less common sects of anarchism - anarcho-capitalism, etc.) I personally agree with most of the anarchist philosophers, so don't think I'm trying to smear anarchism or anything.

In the end, anarchists and libertarian socialists have the same goals: stopping the capitalist exploitation of workers, empowering the underprivileged, freeing the oppressed, and bringing about peace. We shouldn't let squabbles about terminology or minor theoretical differences get in the way of that.

EDIT: Visit our headquarters at One form of anarchism is subset of libertarian socialism. There are many others that go beyond socialism - whatever the flavor. Most anarchists do not, as a rule, believe in "the abolition of government". Only socialists, democrats, monarchists, fascists, and other non-anarchists make that claim about anarchism. :)

Anarchists believe in a comprehensive redefinition of goverment, in terms of its objectives, methods, internal dynamics, etc. - so that it coheres with the elimination of hierarchy and linear authority.

Anarchists, atleast the major thinkers like Goldman or Kropotkin, believe in the abolition of the state, but the rule of a vast federation of democratic workers associations. Some anarchists would be insulted if you called that government. (I did leave out the less common sects of anarchism - anarcho-capitalism, etc.) I personally agree with most of the anarchist philosophers, so don't think I'm trying to smear anarchism or anything.

In the end, anarchists and libertarian socialists have the same goals: stopping the capitalist exploitation of workers, empowering the underprivileged, freeing the oppressed, and bringing about peace. We shouldn't let squabbles about terminology or minor theoretical differences get in the way of that.

EDIT: Visit our head quarters at [url=]secondlife://Heaton/102/57[/url][/QUOTE]

I think Ayn Rand was an amazing intellect and she's one of my personal heroes. I don't agree with her entirely but I think her philosophy of personal responsibility and self-sufficiency is brilliant, especially when taking into account her background and her own personal demons. If everyone believed as she did in aspiring to excellence and staunch individualism instead of blindly following the herd with their hands out, the world would be a hell of a lot better off. When people are so violently opposed to her ideas I can only assume they either didn't understand them or have never actually thoroughly read her works (or they're Christian).

I like that statement better. Anarchists can agree on the elimination of the "state" as it is conceived and implemented by most political processes. Anarchists do, however, recognize the need for diffuse, cooperative organizations placed in an efficient and ordered system to collectively manage the assets and crises of civilization. While many anarchists have made the word "government" into a prejorative for their own, political reasons (much like the word "liberalism" has become an anathema, despite the fact that nearly every mainstream political organization in the Western world is "liberal", that "federation" is precisely a government in terms of definition and function.



Never thought you were smearing anarchists. Unfortunately, as you no doubt know, there's a lot of confusion about what anarchism is - just as there is a lot of confusion about socialism. There was a long and rather frustrating debate on these forums about anarchism a few months ago - and a broad movement that took up the guise of anarchism without knowing what it was. ("No player government of any kind in SL!"



Yes, but the problem always comes after the Revolution, doesn't it? As Goldman herself witnessed in the Soviet Union. Those minor squabbles almost always escalate into major confrontations when the prevailing authority has been overthrown, and the alliance of revolutionary interests tries to create the new order - whatever the character of the revolution or the interests. One way to eliminate the inevitable post-revolutionary conflict is to get your ducks in a row before you succeed.

The major problem there was that after the Revolution, the direction of the Soviets changed from liberation to domination. Due to a series of strokes, Lenin went a little nutty and the authoritarian elements of the Party took over. Pre-Revolution, both Lenin and Trotsky were essentially anarchists, especially if you read the "April Theses".

I don't the the Goldman and Berkman's Russian escapade represents conflict between libertarian socialists and anarchists, but rather authoritarian socialism and anarchism.
Alexander Berkman, in "Prison Memoirs of an Anarchist", used the term libertarian socialist to describe himself on a few occasions.

No Chip, i understand her, she stands for greed, self centerdness, and lack of care about your fellow man. I understand her perfectly, ive read her as thouroughly as i care to, and I'm far from christian, as anyone who knows me in RL, or from the athiest rooms in yahoo could testify.

Simply, my politics are diametrically opposed to her, chip, yes i believe in taking responsibility for yourself, but i also believe in looking out for your fellow man.

Incidentally chip, I looked at some of your posts, and those you were responding to in the "christian god" thread, and i think as far as religious matters go, we have a lot in common, just polittically were at loggerheads, lol.

I don't see Objectivism that way at all. I think the thing that people miss about her philosophy is that it depended on its practitioners to be ethical beyond reproach. She had no problem with altruism. She just had a big problem with it being forced out of people. Voluntary altruism is a wonderful thing. Involuntary altruism is slavery. Not believing that you owe a debt to society doesn't automatically equate to screwing over your fellow man. I find Objectivism very compatible with my own feelings and I don't think I'm a selfish bastard out to screw the little guy

Well, nobody is ethical beyond reproach, so that's a fat lot of use isn't it? One might as well praise a system that depended on everybody in the world being twenty feet tall and made of bananas.

The fallacy of your argument is that socialism doesn't coerce anyone into being a decent human being. Libertarian socialism negates the need for taxation through the democratic control of production, which solves the problem of low wages and few benefits without taxes. The worker's associations also support the communities, which would come to help of anyone in need.

Socialism is the way to have both equity and liberty. Ayn Rand's lasseiz faire markets only create a system in which both freedom and equality are nonexistent for all but the elite few.

To be frank, Ayn Rand is a pseudo-intellectual troll, who's ego is only outweighed by the sheer mass of mindless drivel she authored.

I'm all for socialized medicine and social programs in general (within reason). I still think Rand was a genius. I don't have to agree with someone completely in order to appreciate their philosophy. All philosophies are idealistic and as such none of them by themselves have all the answers. Rand was far from a psuedo-intellectual troll. Something I find to be an almost universal trait in people who despise Ayn Rand is that their objections tend to be emotional rather than rational, in my opinion.