Socialist Party

I just don't see that it's worthwhile considering the arguments of somebody whose premise is utterly incongruous with the real world. I mean, it might be good science fiction - like, uh, Heinlein, that name sounds familiar somehow - but it's not useful political theory.

(I don't actually like Heinlein as a writer either, but that's more a stylistic thing.)

You are sounding like a complete idiot here, arguing against people who have more facts, and more intellect than yourself. Making beligerent pronouncements on politics to Seth who has probably twice your IQ and an encyclopaedic knowledge of the topic, is especially amusing.

The phrase "completely out of your league" comes to mind.

This is where I actually think Rand had a valid criticism. It's a good point to make in a directed liberal-capitalist system with a mixed economy. And an incisive comment on the dangers of state-sponsored "altruism".

Unfortunately, Rand was not so much speaking of progressive taxation and other methods of liberal redistribution of wealth that can be systematically abused, but of Lenin's dictum about giving to the people what you can, and receiving what you must in return. A rabid anticommunist of Russian descent, her extremely emotional hostility toward the Left distorted her ideas beyond usefulness, and caused her to create near-surreal grotesqueries like Atlas Shrugged.




I agree with you here, too - again, however, with a qualification. Rand defined the issue as a "debt" to society - and claimed directly and by implication that the primary relationship between an individual and a modern society was that "debt". In fact, there are myriad other ways that the relationship can be defined - it's a topic that has been "somewhat" debated for several thousand years.

Rand ignored a whole lot, preferring to focus her ideological efforts on the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, and specifically on the antics of the extreme Left. And in doing that, she became not a political thinker so much as a political critic - not a creator of a consistant and sustained ideology but the purveyor of desconstructionist, interventionist method of "curing" the Left. Objectivism, IMO, is very thin and exists more as a vehicle for opinion than a dynamic political philosophy.

So while some of her criticisms are great, I can't see much beyond them. The ironic thing, Chip, is that you stated that Rand's detractors were reacting from emotion rather than reason. I see Rand in the same way - criticisms based on strong emotion, masquerading as a reasonable philosophy and way of life.

I find it ironic that some of the more significant political figures in history rarely caused the long term change they desired.


What would Mao think of China today?

What would Bolivar think of Columbia today?

What would Jefferson think of the United States today?


Whatever the political stripe, all people rely on combustive fuels and generally buy what they can for as little as possible.

These facts will continue to affect our future a lot more than the wisdom of political theorists.

Good points Seth. I don't think I disagree with anything you said. When it comes to Rand, I appreciate her works in the context of who she was and her own personal history. Her books were hugely influential on me when I was younger. I still appreciate them greatly but my own personal philosophy has grown in different directions since. I like what you said about thinking of it more as good criticism than good philosophy. I'd not thought of it that way before but it's an astute observation and I'd have to agree.

I remember when I first read one of her books (I think it was Fountainhead) it was like reading many things I thought myself but had never heard articulated, by myself or anyone else. The parts of it that are still meaningful to me are the unflagging individualism of Roark, and her ideas about "second handers," particularly as expressed in characters like Ellesworth Tooey and Peter Keating, both of whom I think are brilliant archetypes.

My comments regarding people who hate Rand I stand by. She's a popular punching bag in a way that I don't think is in rational proportion to what she had to say... much of it I think is a cultural meme that has more to do with her outspoken atheism than anything else. She's portrayed as someone who advocated an every man for himself (at the expense of others) philosophy and that simply isn't the case. Her philosophy was more akin to airplane emergency airmask etiquette... take care of your own mask first, then help the person next to you if they need it. If everyone's looking to someone else to do it for them we're all screwed.

I don't agree that Rand stood for these things. I see her focusing more on the role of the individual, and the danger of the individual being suppressed. There is alot in her books that rub me wrong. For one, I think she focused a bit more on practicality and function than I would. To her practicality and function seemed to be beauty in themselves. To me they are another way beauty can be left on the side of the road. Every man being responsible for themselves, and the power of being an individual seems to be her main messages that I am getting from her works. Just my interpretation, though.

Now as for selfishness; I do not see why people think so badly about it. Every person has a natural tendancy to seek their own benefit, carry out their own agenda, and fufill their need to survive. I don't care how good of a person might think they are, they still are out for their own agenda. Even if that agenda is to bring love, joy, and hapiness to everyone they meet, they have an agenda. The person is focused on the agenda they wish to see come into reality. I see no problem with a person seeking their own self made agendas until that person has an agenda that hurts me. I also start having a problem when people restrict me from setting my own agenda to seek what I personally desire. I am selfish in wanting things the way I want them, but that does not mean that I automatically am out to hurt people.

As far as greed goes; everyone wants something. Socialism was born out of people wanting an equal cut of the pie. People were greedy for more than they had without having to get it in the conventional methods. The question isn't which side has greed, the question is where do you personally want the limited resources to be distributed.

How do the details of people's views on Ayn Rand's thought have any bearing on Second Life political science?

It has as little relevance as Prokofy Neva's repeated references to the history of Russia, but is much less fun to read.

How does your post have anything to do with the creation of an inworld socialist party movement? - which was the original point of this thread.

Rand's ideas were brought up as a criticism of such a movement, first in a manner of ridicule, and later with far more thought and care by Chip Midnight - who helped make a supposed link between socialism and state-sponsored altruism.

The Nameless One you mention would've peppered this thread with Rand-like invect(ive), so I don't see that point, either.

What are "the conventional methods"?

Historically, the conventional methods of attaining wealth through greed have been to loot, rape, pillage, burn the village, slaughter and cook the cattle, and move on. Capitalism may be a more moderate and civilized way of doing that, but I don't fault approaches such as socialism for wanting to end wanton pillaging in favor of something less destructive.

troll

1. v.,n. [From the Usenet group alt.folklore.urban] To utter a posting on Usenet designed to attract predictable responses or flames; or, the post itself. Derives from the phrase “trolling for newbies” which in turn comes from mainstream “trolling”, a style of fishing in which one trails bait through a likely spot hoping for a bite. The well-constructed troll is a post that induces lots of newbies and flamers to make themselves look even more clueless than they already do, while subtly conveying to the more savvy and experienced that it is in fact a deliberate troll. If you don't fall for the joke, you get to be in on it. See also YHBT.

Too bad I didn't do it deliberately. I'd love to take credit for provoking this little boot party, but I have to admit I was just making a funny little jab at socialism. I wasn't expecting it to turn into a full scale Idealogical Crusade. But I shouldn't be surprised, I suppose.

Inflamatory subject + Criticism of any kind = Caterwauler Central for a while.

I will take the high ground in saying that I at no time made a single personal attack against anyone here. (Apart from the "Mumble" thing, I suppose.)
Which of course makes me better/morally superior than anyone who resorted to namecalling toward me.

Luckily, Capitalism (Real Capitalism) doesn't require me to convince you folks that I am right. The money I have in my account, and my many happy customers are all I need to prove my point.

Which has inspired me a bit. I need to start selling ready-made mountain shacks, yurts, and cabins, complete with printing presses for the creation of anti-government literature etc.

All that and many fun horror/scifi AV's will soon be available at Pontifus Thatch's Discount Villainy! Offering the highest quality at the lowest prices (Or is it the other way around?) since June, 2005!!!

And just for fun, more inflammatory quotes.

It is capitalist America that produced the modern independent woman. Never in history have women had more freedom of choice in regard to dress, behavior, career, and sexual orientation.
Camille Paglia

I believe totally in a Capitalist System, I only wish that someone would try it.
Frank Lloyd Wright

But thanks to my invention, my capitalist friends and I were able to bring the government to its knees.
Erno Rubik

"The danger is not that a particular class is unfit to govern. Every class is unfit to govern."
—Lord Acton (1834-1902)

"The Declaration of Independence presaged a vigorous attempt to kill heavily armed soldiers, rulers, and officers of the state. The Communist Manifesto presaged a vigorous attempt to kill butchers, bakers, and candlestick makers."
—James A. Donald

"You socialists only have one rebuttal to the argument that socialism has been tried and failed miserably; it's the same one an abused wife might hear from the drunken monster that blackened her eye: 'It'll be different this time, I swear!' "
—Dream Machine

"The free market is ugly and stupid, like going to the mall; the unfree market is just as ugly and just as stupid, except there's nothing in the mall and if you don't go there they shoot you."
—P. J. O'Rourke

Who the hell is "Dream Machine"?

Music thingy.

I'd have quoted some Rush Lyrics, too. But why draw more fire than I already have?

I'll pick Nietzsche and Von Hayek for $100, Alex.

I find this discussion completely fascinating. I wish I had the PolySci background to contribute to it intelligently.

Ah, that's boring. Judas Iscariot, Maximilien Robespierre, and Florence Henderson, now - I'd put a thousand on them.

So is justice anything else than the interest of the stronger?

Just a gentle reminder that the stated purpose of the SL In-world Political Science forum is to "Discuss Resident-organized in-world governments, SL themed builds and self-governing sims" - please be sure to keep on topic.

Hokay.... A sim or series of sims - any number up to all of them - governed by a socialist- and/or anarchist-themed confederation:

Discuss.

Would too many SL Randyans contaminate the matrix?

And Lenin's original point: an inworld Socialist Party. Viable?

I'd sure try

the socialist philosphy discussion is only marginally relevant to SL, as the Linden moderator pointed out, but I believe so for different reasons: Second Life is still so "beta" that relevant political issues for users and in-world concerns are still being articiulated. Socialists can form parties or cordon themselves off in private sims, but organizing and campaigning on issues of broad relevance is the lifeblood of any effective political action -- and the independent media, the non-profit organizations, the activists et al. that embody the vibrant aspects of RL democracy are, to my view as a RL journalist, profoundly lacking in SL.

So putting aside the political philosphy discussion (again, how undergrad!), what are the issues that might fuel progressive (socialist, anarchist, add your label here) activism and organizing? Well, you can't propose or vote on any within SL's existing voting system, since that's for game features and whatnot. The political vision of online culture and of new media companies in general has, with a few notable exceptions, been somewhat limited.

So having a polysci forum here is great, but when it comes down to it, SL is a wonderfully vibrant gated, privately-owned community with unclear process for overall accountability and governance. As to weather SL lack of democratic development is a function of SL's young age or by the architecture of its very design is something I'm still trying to figure out for myself. In a sense, SL gets the culture it makes for itself -- and if that's W-Hats and other kids rebelling against mommy and daddy online by griefing, for example, that's not just the Lindens' fault. Residents bear some responsibility, as freedoms in SL are real enough, but its democracy is, well, virtual.

For example, who runs Second Life? How do decisions get made? These are standard RL questions, but not so easy to answer in SL, resulting in the invented term "holography" to describe SL. The ever-contraversial Prokofy Neva blogged up a storm recently on this question:

"As for how prospective LL employees find us -- by my rough count -- at least 1/3 of LL's employees were hired after we met them in Second Life, which is about as many as have been hired based on employee referrals. The rest are the usual mix of recruiters, random meetings, Game Initiative "Breaking In" conferences, and random resume submissions. To my knowledge, none have been hired based on encounters in MMORPGs."
http://secondthoughts.typepad.com/second_thoughts/2005/10/geez_its_the_fi.html

Oyun, one thing I think you'll find over time is that Prokofy's musings tend to have one universal constant as a common thread... they're almost always wrong and poorly reasoned with an amazing consistency. If you want to see a good summation of how things aren't, Prok's blog is an excellent place to start.

I'd like to see someone start a truly Socialist movement... say start a sim, or group of sims, and have everyone who participates have everything they do become the public domain of the socialist group. Everyone shares what they earn and make. I bet it would go great for a while, until the truly productive members of the group realize that everyone else in the group is riding on their coattails and looking to benefit from work and effort they aren't willing to make themselves.

I think some degree of socialism makes sense and is a necessity in any real world governmental system, but in SL where there are no real "needs" I think it will crumble faster than you can tell someone to get off their lazy ass and produce something of value.

The Socialist Party of Second Life battles for social justice and economic equality.

This battle is a long and hard one. Everywhere we turn we find ourselves face to face against the power of the giant corporations and their ever-present greed for more profit. We can feel the effects of this greed in many ways: governmental policies more concerned with interest rates than employment rates, stagnating real wages, decaying cores of cities, an intolerable poverty rate, and so on. In short, our problems stem from the control of wealth and government by a select few.

We need a restructuring of all existing institutions. This restructuring must be democratic, humanitarian, and egalitarian. We must work together against a system that seeks to divide us. We demand a social order where goods will be produced on the basis of human need rather than corporate profit; where cooperation will replace savage competition; and where the fullest potential of every man, woman and child will be allowed to develop.

Dare to dream! Victory is for those with the strength to seize it! Join the Socialist Party!

The anarchist propaganda I have seen all supports the absence of government, if government is viewed as the decision making body of the state, the state being the organization with a monopoly on the legitimate use of force in a geographical region.

Sure, if government and the state are defined synonymously, or if government is representative of state interests.

If government is defined as a tool by which equally-represented interests collectively arrive at agreements, decisions, and policies, and a tool by which those policies are implemented for the good of all - then anarchists support the concept of government. By definition, groups that form and cooperate to negotiate and implement agreements and general policies provide governmental functions. And by definition, human beings are social creatures that form groups to cooperatively negotiate and implement agreements.

Which is largely why many anarchists claim that anarchism is the "natural" and "behavioral" form of human government - and all other forms are unnatural aberrations.

Don't make the mistake of thinking that I necessarily agree with that last claim, however.

Florence Henderson?