By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
donathos on 30 January 2018
Edit Thread
sc94597 said:
donathos said:

Socialism (in whatever guise) requires people to act, not out of their own individual interest, but for the good of the state, or society, or the community, etc. 

This is actually a false premise. Many socialists are/ were strong individualists. Egoist communism, based on the theories of Max Stirner is a thing. 

Usually the argument is that social cooperation benefits the individual, as there are many interests which overlap. 

In so much that interests don't overlap nobody should be forced into a social institution or contract. 

I'm responding to such "socialism" as I've read about/witnessed. The ideas that have actually played some role historically. If there are other theoretical types floating around -- and it is a wide world, so I wouldn't be surprised to hear it -- I don't think they are as relevant.

Regardless, I stand by what I'd written. If you mean to argue that "social cooperation benefits the individual," and that individuals should be left free (e.g. have "liberty") to pursue their own interests -- then that's a fine argument for charity or socially responsible action within a system that is yet fundamentally capitalist. (And for the record, as a capitalist, I completely agree that much social cooperation benefits the individual.) There's nothing there I would disagree with, except I would see no reason to describe it as "socialism."

But were we to adopt such a label, the real question I'm interested in is: what happens when the government believes that some measure of social cooperation stands to benefit a given individual... but that individual disagrees, and does not wish to live his life in the prescribed manner?

I have no doubt that the Soviet planning authorities thought that collectivization of the farms would lead to increased yields and generally more food for everyone; but not only were they incorrect in the end, they also had to deal with those Soviet farmers who did not buy into their plan, and who did not wish to relinquish their grain. They dealt with those folks harshly, which I think is typical of socialist arrangements, because if you're not willing to enforce your idea of socialism (whether you call it "egoist" or not), even against the wishes of other individuals, then you will default back to something like a market economy/capitalism. I think socialism and liberty are, for this reason, fundamentally incompatible.