Nostr Web Client

every intelligent person come to the conclusione that "a socialist attidute on small scale", so to care about people near you and try to bring armony and to help who most need, is the best way to live.

The large scale socialims is bad cause socialism doesnt naturally scale; they made it scale trought the use of coercition and violence.

But theres nothing better of small-scale-volountary socialism, like the political structure that families with kids tipically assumes.

And this is an argument about how anarchy is good, cause people are good and they deserve freedom and freedom-to-associate in small consensus based groups.

ᴛʜᴇ ᴅᴇᴀᴛʜ ᴏꜰ ᴍʟᴇᴋᴜ 1y ago

i disagree with this

there should be a clear hierarchy of ownership and guardianship is a delegation that puts responsibility on the owner (ie, children, pets), this is equity (as in the law system not the nonsensical perversion used by leftists)... you have stake, you have liability... the maxim of equity is "Sacrifice is the measure of credibility" has ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with socialism

the "councillors" don't have any liability, or stake

the ancient greeks had democracy based on land ownership and it only extended to the males, and the females and children were under their protection, and were liable for their misdeeds and mistreatment equally... the muslims also had a similar system later on around property and guardianship

these systems work but people have been mesmerised by Marx and all those who have profited by promoting the idea that socialism is some kind of ideal

my kingdom, my queen, my heirs, and my cattle.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

ponymontana💜⚡ 1y ago

I agree, I use here the term socialism not with all the political and historical meanings, but as "be aware of social-economic disproportions and take care of people around you", like relatives or friends. Being aware of ownership disproportions and offer help and wealth assistance to compensate basic needs (families taking care of older people or kids, offering help to friend even if is at a cost of economic loss, and so on...).

All these in totally freedom and only with people you like and you feel and hope "they would do the same if the situation would be upside-down".

jimbocoin 🃏 1y ago

You can win any argument by redefining words.

ᴛʜᴇ ᴅᴇᴀᴛʜ ᴏꜰ ᴍʟᴇᴋᴜ 1y ago

in your own mind tho, only

charity is charity

socialism is a system of government defined by the use of democracy to elect "representatives" who act as "counsellors" for the rest of us and are supposedly "liable" to those who voted for them

when none of these things are true, and actually, the US federal government is by that definition a socialist state and actually so was the Roman Empire and most empires between these two times also fit the same mould.

the ancient greeks didn't do this, it started with the romans, and it was also the romans who gave the name to Fascism, because that is what it is, it's not a republic, if there is democracy as well, a republic operates purely by the rule of the judges, who compete for adjudication services and their rulings form the basis of a collaborative code of law...

we have been in fascist shit since over 2000 years, actually, whatever you want to call it, it's the same if you ask me

mafia gangsters

ponymontana💜⚡ 1y ago

families are socialism with few partecipants.

ᴛʜᴇ ᴅᴇᴀᴛʜ ᴏꜰ ᴍʟᴇᴋᴜ 1y ago

a wife and the children do always have the option of leaving under a situation of duress, if there is witnesses and evidence to support the case

otherwise you are saying that some people just have to suffer under the tyranny of a psychopathic patriarch, that's not ok, and it's not defensible either

ponymontana💜⚡ 1y ago

a lot of people leaved socialist regime so its an option. Tiranny is how socialism (and any collectivist doctrine) can scale to multiple houdreds people.

A not happy wife or a not happy kid can theoretically peacefully leave the family, this dont make the family less a socialism.

ᴛʜᴇ ᴅᴇᴀᴛʜ ᴏꜰ ᴍʟᴇᴋᴜ 1y ago

i think really that the issue is fascism, which is where there is a binding (slavery) involved

any patriarch who considers his offspring and chattels as being his servants is a tyrant

it doesn't matter the scale, ultimately, it's the slavery, the use of violence to enforce conformity, the lack of ability to aver and disagree and not be attacked for this difference

i would argue that it's not even about this label socialism at all, but rather, if it's a slave system, it's a cult

the cult of rome, the cult of dEmOcRaCy the cult of pUrItY the cult of eQuAlItY

cults, what defines tyrrany is cultic behavior, it's a perversion of the fealty towards a true monarch or patriarch

ponymontana💜⚡ 1y ago

I dont want win anything here, and I've not totally reordered meanings.

We agree that socialism is when the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy? (copypasted first wikipedia result, seems resoanable).

Then we can agree that a "traditional family" is somethung like a little socialism.

Dont go crazy cause I said something different from a simplicistic "bitcoin good l, socialism bad 😋" meme.

ᴛʜᴇ ᴅᴇᴀᴛʜ ᴏꜰ ᴍʟᴇᴋᴜ 1y ago

no, the family is not the same

the man is responsible and must defend, and provide for all of his flock, be they his wife or his children or his pets and livestock, he is responsible for anything they do wrong, as well as doubly punished when he mistreats them

only since the communism banking system arrived that women have had votes or needed to work outside of their own homes

one of the objectives of this system is to turn the children into slaves to the State, also, thus the government controlled education system, and the entire edifice of credentialism that distorts science as well, of course the most important one being history, because you must praise the leaders and their ideology

this is the natural order of human society, and in every case where there has been extended periods of peace this is the order that prevails

when people acquire undue power to influence the lives of other people, the people rapidly are degraded into slaves and whores for the service of the king, or baron, or whatever you want to call it, and ultimately this destroys the integrity of the family, which as i just described is based on the integrity of the man who heads it up, the leader of the family

leadership beyond this level of scale turns rapidly into tyranny, and enslavement for the greater number of people

there is many mechanisms by which they do it, the 10 plankks of communism sum them up. and the thing is, they call them "planks" but they are really the same as the "sticks" (faggots) that are bound to the axe of the warlord, as defined in fascism, which was invented by italians

or at least, they were a notable "innovator" in this way of structuring society to be an army

ponymontana💜⚡ 1y ago

I agree on every example where we exceed 10 individuals that any attempt of doing socialism is bad and just tiranny

ᴛʜᴇ ᴅᴇᴀᴛʜ ᴏꜰ ᴍʟᴇᴋᴜ 1y ago

when you delegate authority, you create an opportunity for a psychopath to fake and manipulate people into obedience

you don't delegate authority in the family, the wife signs up, that's the marriage contract, the children are under protection as heirs, these two things don't apply to the "scaling up" and i would argue any such "scaling up" is a fraud