Is Socialism Anti-American?

[Mr Khan]

Marks said:

prayformojo said:

Marks said:

prayformojo said:
No, but the "patriots" er...elite capitalistic pigs who believe in hoarding 90% of the resources for themselves while bleeding,starving and enslaving the poor will tell you otherwise.

 

You sound like the type of guy that supports high business taxes, and union rights...then wonders why all the factories are moving to China. 

I don't give two shits about business moving to China. You think you'd have concluded as much considering my views on our current system.

Our country is one built on the old idea that it's "every man for himself." I do not believe that way. I believe we are all in this together as a human race. We should all take care of one another and those who feel otherwise, should be made to treat others with such respect. If our goal is to better the human experience, then we can not keep going on with this insane notion of "every man for himself." We are going to have to make laws to protect the unfit from the fit if the fit continue to abuse the unfit. We are going to have to ensure that hoarders of resources can not hoard them anymore, and provide for those who can not provide for themselves.

Anything less is inhumane imo. We, as people, should all take care of one another. It's the only humane choice.

Well you sound like a good, genuine guy. But come on it's always been every man for himself and always will be. From back in caveman times all the way to today. 

Hell I bet the first caveman that discovered fire fucking sold burning embers to his cavemen buddies for their fish and raw meat or whatever the hell cavemen could possibly barter with. It's engrained in our DNA. 

As great as us all joining hands on communal farms and living together in harmony sounds, I don't think that could ever happen. 

If we want to get that primeval, humans, like apes, are tribal creatures, and the man (or woman, just as likely back then) who discovered fire would have freely shared it with the members of their "in-group." Tribal socialism is probably closest to the natural order of things if we want to make that argument, where there is property and ownership, but it falls to large family-clans who live in anarchic states vis-a-vis one another, but who organize things for the good of the group within. Tribal socialism is likely what we would revert to in some kind of post-apocalyptic setup, because without an infrastructure to support organized trade, individualism cannot function on the most basic level (unless you're the mountain man type who can secure all but a few of the necessities on your own, but even then, your survival is easier if you join a group where people work for a common purpose).

Individualism, as we know it, evolved away from that very slowly, not taking a recognizable form until the 1700s.