Topic: This is all down to socialism (Read 4136 times)

In agreement with this, I would suggest that the encryption be doubled or tripled, simply so that there is no chance that someone break the kind of socialism that Bitcoin is. After all, where is there so much freedom in trade while, at the same time, there is such strong socialism?

This is what we need. The simple rules of things like Bitcoin, rather than the complex rules of lying politicians who suggest socialism, and then promote oligarchy, with themselves at the top of the food chain.

Amen.

And I would like to add bitcoin and the blockchain to that.

Don't know for sure what cutesakura was referring to but, tvbcof first mentioned atheism in this thread in his post at https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.9521469 .  And I think that tvbcof was probably responding to my use of the word "God" in https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.9520639 .

Without really knowing what cutesakura was thinking, the above would be my guess. It wasn't my idea to start a "God" argument.

At times we all speak the things that we live, don't we? It's difficult to express anything in a group that is as big as this forum, without offending someone or giving an inaccurate picture somewhere. This entire forum is full of disagreement about all kinds of things, simply because someone wasn't quite careful enough in the words he/she wrote.

It is interesting, though, to see where some of the topic "forks" lead. Do you think cutesakura's post will create a fork? Or will it simply be dropped? Maybe this is the fork. On the other hand, this whole forum by its nature has something to do with socialism, no matter the topic.

Is this in reference to something that was said in this thread? I'm having trouble figuring out the relevance to this discussion.

I think being an atheist is a form of a human ignorance of the creation of man by God, they do not believe in a god who created them, atheism is a form of denial of the blessings given by God to man, whereas the wild spirit they have sworn that their god is God is great ...

I am from a long line of coal miners. The men in my family were coal miners all the way back to the 1860's- thats as far back as I have been able to trace.
  My great great grandfather broke his back in the pit and my great uncle was killed in a gas explosion. Chances are I would have followed them into the pits were it not for the fact that when I left school in 1984 the miners strike was on - and coal minings ultimate demise in the UK was only a short distance in time away. Instead, I ended up getting myself educated - an opportunity never available to the generations that went before me.

   I am proud of my forefathers, and their work in the coal mines. Their work fuelled the industrial revolution - and it kept the lights on and heated the homes of families throughout Great Britain and much of Europe.
   And besides all that - its mans work, not work for little girls  .


    The reason I mention it, is that it is with this background that my views and understanding of "socialism" have been framed. And with the years whereby a large working class were represented by a "socialist" Labour Party.

     Clause IV of the Labour Party constitution, introduced in 1918, once read :- "To secure for the workers by hand or by brain the full fruits of their industry and the most equitable distribution thereof that may be possible upon the basis of the common ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange, and the best obtainable system of popular administration and control of each industry or service"     -     and this encapsulated the socialist aspirations of a nation.

     This idea was most notably incarnated in the Coal Industry Nationalisation Act of 1946, in the aftermath of the war, and under a great wave of gratitude to the ordinary working men and women who gave so much in that conflict. Prior to the 1946 Act, the nations coal mines had been in private ownership - private owners who had (traditionally) been aristocrat landowners who had had the good fortune to have land with seams of coal beneath their forests and fields.
      Obviously, under the free market and quest for profit, conditions for workers (men, women and children) were not of paramount importance to the private owner (though some, to be fair, were better than others). Indeed, an old saying was that the mine owner was more concerned with the death of a pit pony than of a human being - because they had to pay to replace the pony. Engels described conditions in the 19th century British coal mine well in The Condition of the Working Class in England , by all accounts.




    Anyhow, to get back to the OP, how on Earth can my, albeit old fashioned and probably outdated, conception of socialism possibly be to blame for 85 people owning one half of planet Earth ? It obviously can't.
      Socialism was dead in the UK way before the Labour Party/Tony Blair finally dropped Clause 4 in 1995. Maybe even before the miners were defeated in the 1984 strike - although this was definitely a pivotal point. As was the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991.
     It seems to me that it is since the "defeat" of socialism that the wheels of this gross capitalist accumulation have really started rolling.



    




As a side note, pre this post, I was reading something on the National Union of Mineworkers website.
    On it, it states an interesting point on the experience within the industry post nationalisation that I thought might be of some interest to those of you that equate socialism with the state - and would seem to validate your concerns. Bearing in mind this was in the years immediately after WW2 I think its fascinating :-

        "The dawn of nationalisation brought hope to the miners who had lived with the evils of privately owned pits all their lives. One could almost hear the cheers of heroes and heroines from the past as well as the present, celebrating the reality of public ownership.........Soon, however, hopes and dreams began to sour as miners became increasingly aware that private ownership has been replaced by State rather than common ownership. It was now apparent that control and management of the industry had been left in the hands of those who had previously been either managers or actual owners of private mines.

To add injury to this injustice, the fledgling nationalised concern was forced to pay compensation to former owners, including compensation for pits which had already been closed! "


Of course, if this weren't the case there wouldn't have been a need for a trade union at all !!

The question is - is this all down to socialism ?

USSR was absolutely a totalitarian state. Socialism can only work when it's voluntary. State socialism is imposed through force, and it can never work because it is stealing by nature of it being non-voluntary. If you had a voluntary society, socialism could work, but I doubt it is ever practical because human beings are hard-wired to be selfish. Voluntary socialism requires unanimity, which seems unlikely except in small groups. I can't see it working voluntarily for a complex society or entire nation. It only takes one person to disagree to make the system not unanimous, and therefore not completely voluntary.

I personally fell into this trap in a significant way.  Now I am hoping that it isn't to late.  And spending some effort to try to foster some recovery...as evidenced by my post here.


I'll not argue against your point about Atheism either.  Nor will I change my ways of course other than to become more accepting than I have been at some points.  The fact of the matter is that many of the mildly religious people I know are simply better persons in many ways than are some of non-religious folks.  And 'Green' is a religion in and of itself which brings out some really awful thought pasterns and behaviors against other humans as often as not.

My point isn't to be mean to atheists. My point is to only suggest that atheism is possibly the clearest self-nullifying religion of all the self-nullifying religions.

Probably most atheists are rather honest people at heart. Some of them are highly intelligent, good workers, rather right people, just like the people of some other religions. The only difference is that they (atheists) probably haven't thought out the bottom-line basis of their atheism religion completely.

Since God can't really be proven or disproven, atheism takes a position of placing itself in authority. If God exists, taking the authority to firmly say He doesn't exist is taking on authority that is greater than God's... making the atheist to be god over even God.

If God doesn't exist, the above premise still holds true, because to suggest that God doesn't exist, gives credit to at least the suggestion of God... God Who the atheist is taking authority over by saying that He doesn't exist, thereby making himself a god of greater authority than God. If it were proven that God didn't exist, it might be a different story.

Big "S" Socialism happens when small "s" socialists (community minded people) place so much trust in their socialist leaders that they don't even recognize when those socialist leaders become Socialist leaders. Big "S" Socialism isn't really socialism. Neither is big "L" Libertarianism really libertarianism. Both of them are something like dictatorships, fascism, capitalism, or some combination of these, and maybe something else altogether.

The fact that we have and recognize our personal identities, and the fact that we don't know enough to truly prove or disprove God, shows that we are religiously minded. Thus, atheism is simply another religion. It falls into the class of religions that suggest man is god/God, and should really be spelled "Atheism."

Then by that token, small "S" socialism is the recognition that through cooperation in building and maintaining social structures a better quality of life in society can be achieved relative to a more free-for-all commonly associated with libertarianism.  That was the sole basis upon which I was once willing to call myself a 'socialist'.  Yes, it does indicate some level of transfer of wealth, and yes I was (and still am) a proponent of that for technical reasons I won't get into right now.

What happened is that we got Socialism in almost all societies, and most assuredly here in the 'Land of the Free.'  Big time.  It grew under a framework of corruption because the corrupt siphon off value flows.  That is the engine which drives it, and I'm wondering (with horror) if it is the ONLY engine which can.

My big problem is that there is no end-game but totalitarianism with the Socialism we've cultivated in the West (and, frankely, everywhere else in the world through the ages.)  Here there is no other end-game that I can realistically see.  Much safer and to just have Anarchy and build upward into a better state than to try to ratchet downward from modern Socialism into one which is a dubious proposition at best.  I believe that this would likely happen fairly quickly because Anarchy (or even genuine Libertarianism) would be so awful for so many people.

[/quote]


Being an atheist I don't buy that suggestion in it's presented form.  Being science minded (and logical) I see mathematical flaws here.  Being observant, I agree with you.  We are not at the point where carrying capacity for humans is threatened and we are not in immediate danger of that...that suggestion is a scare tactic used by the 'sustainable' crowd and often enough under the direction of those who have subverted Socialism for personal gain...see above.

I would allow for the possibility that we are not in danger due to the eugenics programs of these folks over the years however...that is a subject I'm exploring at this time...

Also not being a religious person I do not buy the religious suggestion that it is some sort of a spiritual duty to let nature be untouched by man.  As practical and (I believe) ethical person I think we should not totally fuck things up for no reason and show a little bit of thoughtfulness, but we should not flagellate ourselves for some spiritual-esque nonsense about environmentalism either.

Small "l" libertarianism, the REAL libertarianism, simply stated is similar to the Golden Rule. At its core, libertarianism is, "harm nobody, don't damage his property, and fulfill all your agreements." In all else there is freedom.

God made the world as big as it is so that people can be free without encroaching on someone else. Get out of the big cities.

For these, then, your “golden rule” is my “tyranny,” and your “libertarian” is my “despot.”

It seems that most people have a difficult time in finding the basic, bottom-line ideas surrounding much of anything. The libertarian idea which is, bottom-line, the golden rule, is only the basis. It is the goal that should be looked at in all kinds of operations, personal or governmental. In complex situations, there will be complex governmental operations. The libertarian goal should remain the thing strived for.

Try socialist soda:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p2F9SckkeM4

Romanticism about "harm" and "property" will not surmount those ills most often attributed thereto: there is no harm without tyranny, and only a despot may retain property.

Democracy IS a large concentration of power. Democracy is where the 51% or more rule over the 49% or less. At least they think that they do. What happens is that there is a small group that promotes a so-called democracy vote in such a way that benefits the small group over everyone else.

Formal - big "L" - Libertarianism might promote anything. But TRUE libertarianism - small "l" - promotes the simple common law of the people. This common law is, "Complete freedom as long as you harm no-one or damage his property." The only exception is that there may be completely voluntary associations formed, and inside those associations there may be some form of " association government" that is not entirely libertarian, but it is always voluntary.

I sort of agree. If you look at the Soviet Union for example, it was pretty far from what a socialist society is supposed to be. Workers had no control over means of production, or much of anything else really. It was more of a totalitarian state. But you have to remember there are several ways to achieve socialism, not just through state socialism. Libertarian socialism for example, specifically rejects the idea of using existing state structures to achieve socialism, tries to avoid large concentrations of power, and instead focuses on more direct forms of democracy.

I agree with your assessment, but I think the reason you don't see strong state socialism in a strong democracy is that the state is too corrupted in such a situation. Those with power are seldom (if ever) in the same boat with the people they make the rules for, but with state socialism this disparity is even less tolerable since the the point of the system is to share the means of production much more equitably than ever happens.

A lot of confusion there. As the previous user said, you can have personal property in socialism and you can most certainly have privacy. What you can't have is private ownership of the means of production. Workers would own and manage their work places. And production would be directed for consumption, and not for gaining profit. In this sense, socialism isn't incompatible with democracy but simply a different way to run a society, while trying to minimize inequality.