Florence Henderson?
Sure. One of the greatest social philosophers of our time. Of course, there's always been a controversy over how much of her work was based on her own ideas... and how much was based on Alice's or Jan's.
These forums are CLOSED. Please visit the new forums HERE
Socialist Party |
|
Seth Kanahoe
political fugue artist
![]() Join date: 30 Jan 2005
Posts: 1,220
|
11-01-2005 19:05
Florence Henderson? Sure. One of the greatest social philosophers of our time. Of course, there's always been a controversy over how much of her work was based on her own ideas... and how much was based on Alice's or Jan's. _____________________
|
Noel Marlowe
Victim of Occam's Razor
![]() Join date: 18 Apr 2005
Posts: 275
|
11-02-2005 08:21
To me, SL is almost a perfect anarchist environment. Is there capitalism? Yes, but it's dominance can be debated. I can choose to ignore it and not worry about staving or freezing to death. Plus, there are versions of anarchism that are proponents to being neutral to capitalism. Their stance depends on part on whether were are referring to small market capitalism to corporate capitalism.
So, what's my point? Besides the usual anarchist/socialist slogans/catchphrases, what are some actual examples of shortcomings do you see in SL that can be rectified in by A/S? |
Eandi Xingjian
Registered User
Join date: 17 Oct 2005
Posts: 28
|
11-02-2005 09:01
Earlier today I formed the Second Life chapter of the Socialist Party. In doing this, I hope to provide an alternative way for individuals to commune, interact, and produce. I also hope to utilize Party membership to launch some in-world political activism. Our goal isn't to overthrow the free market of Second Life or anything like that, as most people seem to enjoy virtual capitalism, we just want there to be options. If anybody is interested in helping out with SPSL, then instant message Lenin Camus. Also, for members in need, I'm offering some free rent homes. Hey comrade, like the bumper sticker says: "Kill a Commie for your Mommie" Why cant you fools learn from history, it dont work. HAPPY? |
Noel Marlowe
Victim of Occam's Razor
![]() Join date: 18 Apr 2005
Posts: 275
|
11-02-2005 09:08
Then perhaps you should study history yourself before calling others a fool. After all, all types of goverment have failed. The confederation of the early America, the republic of Rome, the democracies of Greece, the dictatorships of... pretty much anywhere, the monarchies of Europe and so on and so on. Unless you have knowledge of a perfect goverment.
|
Seth Kanahoe
political fugue artist
![]() Join date: 30 Jan 2005
Posts: 1,220
|
11-02-2005 10:13
Hey comrad, like the bumber sticker says: "Kill a Commie for your Mommie" Why cant you fools learn from history, it dont work. Learning from history usually gives a person better control over the language, doesn't it, comrade? Whatever the bumper sticker might say.... _____________________
|
Dark Korvin
Player in the RL game
Join date: 13 Jun 2005
Posts: 769
|
11-04-2005 00:40
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. The conventional methods are finding ways to get money without using the government to do it. One possible method is to go to your neighbor, kill them, and take all their stuff as you have pointed out. Hopefully there is a legal system to provide enough order that this does not happen. I agree that pure capitlism causes problems. Pure capitalism promotes classes of people that start out with the advantage of having the money in the beginning to run an unofficial form of slavery. With enough money, you can make money off of the work of others without working yourself in a capitalist system. Mining operations earlier in American history are a good example of how people can be used like slaves in a capitalist system. The advantages of education and opportunity are not equal to all, so some socialism can help give a more equal opportunity to all for success. Pure socialism has the problem of people loosing motivation. If everyone gets an equal slice of the pie no matter what, then there is no motivation to accomplish anything. Eventually the government becomes corrupt in some way like all governments do, and the only motivating work is work that lets you get more than an equal share of the pie like government. The trick comes in finding the balance that allows all an equal opportunity to any position in society with the effort, but not to take away the whole motivation of economics from society completely. Ayn Rand points out the additional danger of the loss of the individual that can occur with complete government control. This would be a problem under any extremely controlling government, however. Capitalism tends to need less government control than socialism since it is a survival of the fittest system, though I suppose theoretically a government can be capitalist and still try to impose control in all other aspects of life. Control over citizens is just another factor to be balanced in a government. I don't think either system should go to the extreme, though I prefer things more on the capitalistic side myself. We need programs to help out those with misfortune to help raise the entire country to a position where they can succeed, but we don't benefit overall if everyone is given a free ticket to an equal share. |
Azrael Baphomet
Registered User
Join date: 13 Sep 2005
Posts: 93
|
I'm in, Camus
11-04-2005 08:14
Man, the childish reactions of some to the initial post of this thread are entertaining, if nothing else.
How many American SLers realize that a goodly portion of SL live their real lives, very happily, in explicitly socialist states? I think this is a great idea, Camus, and I'd love to join up later today. |
Lenin Camus
Registered User
Join date: 18 Oct 2005
Posts: 30
|
11-04-2005 12:32
I prefer things more on the capitalistic side myself. We need programs to help out those with misfortune to help raise the entire country to a position where they can succeed, but we don't benefit overall if everyone is given a free ticket to an equal share. The most basic understanding with socialism is that socialism is simply a massive welfare program. While this may be true in some socialist factions, the majority of socialists believe that poverty can be reduced/negated through the public ownership of the means of production. A democratically controlled economy prevents the concentration of wealth and resources that modern capitalism creates, and it does so without high taxes. Of course, those with needs - children, mentally disabled, elderly, etc. - would be supported by the community. Many of the countries that call themselves "socialist", such as Sweden, their systems should be labeled social state capitalism, as the government uses high taxes to redistribute wealth, but social ownership is rare. |
Luciftias Neurocam
Ecosystem Design
Join date: 13 Oct 2005
Posts: 742
|
11-04-2005 13:20
Many of the countries that call themselves "socialist", such as Sweden, their systems should be labeled social state capitalism, as the government uses high taxes to redistribute wealth, but social ownership is rare. With all due respect, Camus, this is a common critique among the libertarian left of "state socialism" but it is a loaded critique. It's the trick of giving an unwanted label (social state capitalism) to the approach you don't like in order to pump up your approach. I sympathize with your position here, Lenin Camus, but I have never really liked this tactic. It's just as dismissive of the socialism implemented by Sweden (or almost any country in Europe) as the forum pro-market crowd are being of the socialism you're advocating. |
Lenin Camus
Registered User
Join date: 18 Oct 2005
Posts: 30
|
11-04-2005 19:36
With all due respect, Camus, this is a common critique among the libertarian left of "state socialism" but it is a loaded critique. It's the trick of giving an unwanted label (social state capitalism) to the approach you don't like in order to pump up your approach. I sympathize with your position here, Lenin Camus, but I have never really liked this tactic. It's just as dismissive of the socialism implemented by Sweden (or almost any country in Europe) as the forum pro-market crowd are being of the socialism you're advocating. I believe that socialism is a misnomer for any system that doesn't involve the social ownership of production. Sweden is still a free market, only with high taxes. Call it what you want, terminology isn't something worth quarreling over, but European "socialism" is different from libertarian "socialism". It's important to know the difference to have a legitimate discussion about socialism. |
Desmond Shang
Guvnah of Caledon
![]() Join date: 14 Mar 2005
Posts: 5,250
|
11-04-2005 20:07
Lenin Camus, these ideas are fascinating ones, and clearly ideas that have been taken seriously by a great portion of humanity.
I am, I believe, from an 'opposing camp', but I'll never let that stand in the way of a good discussion. A question (for the sake of fascinating discussion, not expenditure of angst): Would you see a socialist Second Life as one of your goals, presuming corporate realities allowed such a thing? I am clearly participating in a capitalistic Second Life; using whatever means I may to create gains for myself. I have a shop and clientele, privately 'owned', which more than covers my tier on 9000m+ of land. My customers seem to be the 'successful' in their own right; phenomenally wealthy, landed, and with fairly sophisticated tastes. As such, would my business not be almost the antithesis of your goal? I don't exploit any workers on the production side, but I am striving to obtain $L, putting it in the most blunt way possible. Second question (one for which I expect no immediate answer, it is difficult) - what might be an alternative for both myself and my customers? These items are put forth for discussion only - I won't be offended by any reply. - Desmond Shang _____________________
![]() Steampunk Victorian, Well-Mannered Caledon! |
Tai Ming
Registered User
Join date: 29 May 2005
Posts: 9
|
11-05-2005 05:05
are there any socialist countries without high taxes? Or rather, since that is subjective, are there any socialist countries that have lower taxes than capitalist or despot states? You've piqued my interest. I'd call myself a capitalist-libertarian
_____________________
I study the ancient martial art called "Tai Ming"
|
Seth Kanahoe
political fugue artist
![]() Join date: 30 Jan 2005
Posts: 1,220
|
11-05-2005 07:44
The most basic understanding with socialism is that socialism is simply a massive welfare program. While this may be true in some socialist factions, the majority of socialists believe that poverty can be reduced/negated through the public ownership of the means of production. A democratically controlled economy prevents the concentration of wealth and resources that modern capitalism creates, and it does so without high taxes. Of course, those with needs - children, mentally disabled, elderly, etc. - would be supported by the community. With Jeska's "gentle reminder" in mind, let me ask this: 1. There are no "children" or "elderly" in Second Life. There are disabled people, of course - but the implications and consequences of being disabled are different in SL than in RL. "Those with needs" do not exist in SL - at least in the same way. Does this mean that a basic part of the socialist agenda is irrelevant in SL? Does this make socialism as a whole irrelevant to SL, or simply easier to manage? Or does this mean that the socialist agenda needs to be modified? If so, how? 2. There is no "wealth" to concentrate in SL. There is time and labor, but it is voluntarily given. There are a few individuals who dominate certain "vapor commodities" that are desirable in SL - such as "land" - but none of those commodities are essential to life and survival - only enjoyment, hobbyism, and recreation. Same question, then: Does this mean that socialism as it is conceived in RL is irrelevant to SL? Or does it mean that the socialist agenda needs to be modified, and how? _____________________
|
Zebulon Starseeker
Hujambo!
![]() Join date: 31 Dec 1969
Posts: 203
|
11-05-2005 10:26
1. There are no "children" or "elderly" in Second Life. There are disabled people, of course - but the implications and consequences of being disabled are different in SL than in RL. "Those with needs" do not exist in SL - at least in the same way. Does this mean that a basic part of the socialist agenda is irrelevant in SL? Does this make socialism as a whole irrelevant to SL, or simply easier to manage? Or does this mean that the socialist agenda needs to be modified? If so, how? 2. There is no "wealth" to concentrate in SL. There is time and labor, but it is voluntarily given. There are a few individuals who dominate certain "vapor commodities" that are desirable in SL - such as "land" - but none of those commodities are essential to life and survival - only enjoyment, hobbyism, and recreation. Same question, then: Does this mean that socialism as it is conceived in RL is irrelevant to SL? Or does it mean that the socialist agenda needs to be modified, and how? These are two great points I think that illustrate the problem of introducing the 'socialist agenda' in SL. It fulfills no purpose here aside from an educational/proselytization standpoint. No one is forced into a situation in SL that would raise a moral crisis that may justify calling such a social/economic model into effect. Some might disagree with that statement, but face it; if you don't like SL, you can take it or leave it. So I would have to say yes, the 'agenda' is irrelevant - I seriously doubt it can supersede the anarcho-capitalist model SL is based on now, with the exception of private run island sims. |
Luminia Olsen
Registered User
Join date: 12 Jun 2004
Posts: 50
|
11-06-2005 01:21
yup if you own a Private sim....if you can run it as you see fit....but if you dont you have no rights to do anything...
|
Monique Sachertorte
Registered User
Join date: 11 Oct 2005
Posts: 30
|
11-07-2005 14:01
Just saw a poscard with a furry (Lenin Camus?) in front of a big ugly hammer & sickle.
Does this mean it should now be okay, fair and just to put swastikas all over the place (you know, for people sympathizing with that other kind of socialism)? It should. After all, all types of goverment have failed. Not at the cost of at least 25 million people (in the USSR alone). |
Forcet Duport
Registered User
Join date: 14 Sep 2005
Posts: 3
|
11-07-2005 14:38
I believe that furry would be me.
Personally, I found the picture to be a bit cute. I'm not trying to make a political statement or anything. By the way, the "big ugly hammer and sickle" flag was enclosed by walls and a roof. I'm sure it won't offend anyone passing by, unless one decides to enter the SLSP HQ. Completely different than putting swastikas "all over the place". |
Monique Sachertorte
Registered User
Join date: 11 Oct 2005
Posts: 30
|
11-07-2005 15:17
Not different to putting a swastika enclosed by walls under a roof. I doubt the Lindens would accept it and if they did, they might not dare allowing it anyhow. After all, it might not create a good image in The New York Times...
I don't care about the politics either. But if one is allowed, so should the other. EDIT: Useless, misleading remark removed. |
Forcet Duport
Registered User
Join date: 14 Sep 2005
Posts: 3
|
11-07-2005 15:44
I, as a resident, believe that every landowning resident has the right to do whatever they want to their land, as long as the use of their land does not bring about harm to people who happen to travel into their land.
Just like it's completely (on a legal standpoint) fine (but completely and utterly socially unacceptable) to shag your walls down with Hitler posters in RL, it should be completely fine to do the same thing in SL. *It should be noted that I'm not a staunch Hitler supporting neo-nazi, but am just trying to make a point. I'm convinced the Lindens will do nothing, not because of irrationality, but because of the preservation of private self-expression. Now, on the other hand, I'm completely opposed to putting swastikas in public places for, probably, the same reasons as you. It offends people, and it's not fun to be chased by mobs. |
Lenin Camus
Registered User
Join date: 18 Oct 2005
Posts: 30
|
11-07-2005 15:45
The hammer and the sickle existed long before Lenin and Trotsky, they were simply utilized by the USSR. They represent the broader socialist movement, which is an economic lifestyle, not racial separatism.
Using your logic, displaying and American flag is as bad as a swastika. _____________________
"Jesus was the first socialist, the first to seek a better life for mankind." - Mikhail Gorbachev
|
Monique Sachertorte
Registered User
Join date: 11 Oct 2005
Posts: 30
|
11-07-2005 16:48
Please explain "broader socialist movement". As far as I know, the hammer and sickle made its appearence in 1917 Russia, i.e definitely contemporary with Trotsky and Lenin:
http://atlasgeo.span.ch/fotw/flags/su.html ...which is an economic lifestyle, not racial separatism. Lifestyle? Communism is about making a new human being which requires leading everyone into the desert for 40 years in order to purge humanity of "bourgois" mental remnants, inevitably entailing massmurder. Moreover, there was doubtlessly an ethnic dimension to the actions of the Cheka during Lenin. For example, revenge on the Russian peasant for pogroms in the past. Using your logic, displaying and American flag is as bad as a swastika. I simply don't understand what you are trying to say here. |
Monique Sachertorte
Registered User
Join date: 11 Oct 2005
Posts: 30
|
11-07-2005 16:57
Forcet Duport, I absolutely agree with you. Hope you're right about the Lindens.
|
Lenin Camus
Registered User
Join date: 18 Oct 2005
Posts: 30
|
11-07-2005 18:00
Please explain "broader socialist movement". As far as I know, the hammer and sickle made its appearence in 1917 Russia, i.e definitely contemporary with Trotsky and Lenin: http://atlasgeo.span.ch/fotw/flags/su.html Lifestyle? Communism is about making a new human being which requires leading everyone into the desert for 40 years in order to purge humanity of "bourgois" mental remnants, inevitably entailing mass murder. Moreover, there was doubtlessly an ethnic dimension to the actions of the Cheka during Lenin. For example, revenge on the Russian peasant for pogroms in the past. I simply don't understand what you are trying to say here. While I'm sure the World Animated Flag Website is an impeccable source, the hammer and sickle (or the combination of other similar tools) was used as a symbol by other workers organizations in the late 1800's. It represents the workers, not a single nation or ideology. Furthermore, your idea of "communism" is Stalinism, which is basically dead amongst the left today (Thank God!). Stalinism is the antithesis of libertarian socialism, which is democratic and doesn't involve the wholesale slaughter of civilians. Please, do not confuse the SPSL with anything remotely Stalinist. Stalin and Hitler were the two most evil men of the 20th century, and I have no respect for either of them. Furthermore, many socialists don't support much of what Lenin did after the revolution. Under pressure from certain authoritarian elements, he started to take away many of the freedoms that the workers were promised. Also, Lenin went a little nutty after he started having strokes. _____________________
"Jesus was the first socialist, the first to seek a better life for mankind." - Mikhail Gorbachev
|
Monique Sachertorte
Registered User
Join date: 11 Oct 2005
Posts: 30
|
11-08-2005 10:09
While I'm sure the World Animated Flag Website is an impeccable source, the hammer and sickle (or the combination of other similar tools) was used as a symbol by other workers organizations in the late 1800's. It represents the workers, not a single nation or ideology. Ok, thanks. The subject is mildly interesting, no? Furthermore, your idea of "communism" is Stalinism, which is basically dead amongst the left today (Thank God!). Stalinism is the antithesis of libertarian socialism, which is democratic and doesn't involve the wholesale slaughter of civilians. Actually, my idea of Communism was Marxist-Leninism as practiced by the early Bolsheviks, long before Stalin rose to power. Democratic and liberal, Marxist-Leninism never was apart from some interesting new speak word twisting. Bolshevism was from its inception a movement at war with the Russian people and only able to cling on to the host animal through wholesale terror, repression and murder. In fact, when it comes to the particular type of ethnical conflict hinted at above, Stalin, who's regime of terror naturally is no second to Lenin's, actually served to end it since he gradually shifted the powerbase of the Soviet regime from an outgroup in Soviet society to Russian nationalism. Stalin and Hitler were the two most evil men of the 20th century, and I have no respect for either of them. I would definitely include Lenin in this lot. |
Luciftias Neurocam
Ecosystem Design
Join date: 13 Oct 2005
Posts: 742
|
11-08-2005 13:23
I would definitely include Lenin in this lot. You need a cutoff, or the statement is meaningless. Is he in the top 10 most evil men? Doubtful. Highly, highly, doubtful. Top 100? It's at least arguable, but in terms of sheer bodycount, we might be able to exclude him from this list too. |