those collectives are not "socialist" in nature, but rather Communal. (see Communism)
if you wish these terms to be used in Ye Olde Tyme meaning of the Pre-Marx era then you need to specify who's definition of "Socialism" and "Communism" you are using or the discussion can go nowhere.
Fine, so that makes me a Communist-Libertarian?
Why do I empathize with social-democracy then?
Is it because those who existed when it was named as such, before you or I were sperm, "didn't understand Marx" either?
Is it not conceivable they didn't give a shit about Marx?
it's not that peculiar a bias.
Actually, it is most peculiar, verging on
deviant.
money and economic reality drives many of my personal and political decisions, but not all.
Very good, at least you accept its
predominate influence.
Social But Not Socialist: society is essential, and thus we must all give up a little of our personal fortunes, labour and effort that society as a whole may improve.
Capitalist: but what's mine is mine, and whats yours is yours, and if we wish to trade some of my shit for some of your shit, why the hell not.
i would place myself in the position on your chart marked "Internet Democracy".
THAT's what I was waiting for in the first place, thanks.
Now I can ponder your perspective more efficiently.
not too much capitalism, nor too much collectivism, but erring on the side of capitalism.
absolute political freedom. freedom of thought and political expression is essential for any free society to function
personal liberty should be as unrestricted as possible, without devolving into anarchy, but Not Everyone Is Nice.
capitalism and free markets as much as is practical while still funding and preserving the society which allows markets to exist, and protecting The Commons from despoilers or over-exploitation
That sure sounds a lot like Social-Democracy to me. The only thing you are neglecting is how to handle
Natural Monopolies.
i have cited Das Kapital and its faulty assumptions based on a "materialist" (again not the standard definition, rather, the curious one used by Marx and Engles) view of social interactions several times.
I must have missed those fleeting moments of lucidity in between your Anti-Marx rants.
I encourage you to use them more in the future just to keep some of the more emotionally-charged verbiage of "manifestos" out of the conversation, while giving me something I can easily reference.
all social interaction is NOT economic, in fact the best ones are entirely NON-Economic.
No kidding? I enjoy playing guitar, fucking, painting, smoking weed, cooking, playing video games, figuring out why the Corona of the Sun is hotter than the surface or how I can get my rockets to fly straighter etc. but at some point money is involved. Either through electricity, dinner and libations, publications, fertilizers and smoking implements, or other sundry elements.
Just because one can envisage an activity without commerce does not preclude it from being represented in a commercial (or economic) form.
marx and engles wrote the book, their definitions are well... definitive, yet those who wish to use alternate definitions rarely provide any explanation of HOW they are using these words so fraught with baggage.
And there we have it. Your vision is still constrained immensely by Marx and Engles. For you it all revolves around those two.
I can easily incorporate
your definitions into my analysis, but you can't (or refuse to) escape the 2nd quadrant in yours.
That's somewhat of an
appeal to authority fallacy, though.
You know, a lot has changed since those two wrote that particular manuscript. There has been a great deal of synthesizing and differentiation amongst
socialist theoreticians over the decades. The "manifesto" is not exactly the Bible or Dictionary of Socialism.
And yet you continue to insist it
must be that way?
You can destroy Marx all you want, but that doesn't change the broader application of socialism in the socio-politico-economic sphere (cylinder? cube? Tetrahedron?)
your discourse is also quite agreeable. but macro-economics is still just tarot card reading with charts and graphs.
That's okay, I think Macro is full of shit, too. That's why I explore and try to
implement heterodox theories into my attempts at modeling, to break the mold of orthodox failure. That's why people like Minsky
demanded macro-economic models have an allowance for the possibility of "Great Depressions" or else they are half-baked.
But Tarot reading? Come on...Physics is full of "tarot reading", too, yet somehow those nerds manage to get satellites in orbit so we can carry-on these types of conversations from the comfort of our respective abodes. The difference comes down to refinement within error analysis, where economics has a
lot of work to do (especially with its
fallacies of composition) before it (re)approaches the king of sciences, at least as far as our present state of existence is concerned.
Anyway, I need to get back to my Lagrangian and Hamiltonian Mechanics studies, while finding some time to squeeze in a little
Ferdinand Lassalle.
I enjoyed the game...good luck and feel free to get in the last word at your discretion.
I have nothing more to offer at this point, nor do I see any more room for us to reach a consensus.
