Is the family structure Socialism?
(media.communities.win)
Comments (17)
sorted by:
this
I know plenty of dysfunctional families where those do happen, and a few governments where it doesn't happen at all, so your definition doesn't hold water unless you can apply to all families and all governments.
Well, you want to live with flexible definitions that fit your feelings, go ahead. I'd rather cut through the fat.
It annoys me when the left says this. The family structure is not socialist. I don't give my wife money and food and board because she points a gun to my "greedy capitalist" head and makes me pay out. I give her money because I love her. Nobody forces me to stay in this relationship, and nobody forces her. If I raped her and said she agreed to it because of the "social contract" that her friends voted on, the jury would laugh me out of the room, and then throw me in jail and toss out the key. No normal relationship acts socialist. Same with our kids. I provide for them and support them because I choose to, not because some asshole points a gun to my face and makes me. Sometimes courts make you pay child support, but that by definition would be a failed relationship, not a successful one. Government programs by their very nature are a failed relationship. Nothing good, normal or whole acts that way. Don't pretend that government is a voluntary agreement, voluntary family, or voluntary community when it is actually just deadly force. The fact that they have to lie like that proves all the more that they are full of shit.
I think you're on the right track, and it sounds like your family dynamic is a healthy one, but what about unhealthy (dysfunctional/abusive/co-dependent) families? If we should fight against abusive government, should we allow fight against dysfunctional family structures that have rape, abuse, and starvation?
The dynamics of government still tends to harm families more than it helps them. Of course, we should fight abuse in all forms. IMHO, the free market tends to help family dynamics. For example, the left often credits government regulations for ending child labor, and getting kids in schools, but the truth is that free market capitalism creating a large middle class was what was really responsible for that.
That I agree on mostly, although if we focused on promoting healthy families, government would become redundant at best. The government has become more "necessary" as families have eroded their moral fiber and faith-based and non-profit groups have abandoned their civic duty to their communities.
I dunno, the Hutterites and Amish seem pretty happy and fulfilled in their own little Familial Communes...
It is hard for me to critique such noble socialism.
I exchange my services (helping you build a barn) in return, you render a service (help me build mine). Equal exchange of value. After the barns are raised, and animals fed, due to help from children (earning sustenance, and roof over head, clothes on back in exchange for giving them life, and provision until age of ability), we harvest lumber to build furniture, purchase or produce fabrics for clothing or bed clothes, and other accoutrements, and sell these to eachother in exchange for other products or services, or sell them to the outside world. Not very socialist if you ask me.
My children are learning the value of time and effort. Chores in exchange for either payment or other wants/needs. My wife takes care of our children when they are not in school. I provide the ability for all this to happen. I am the c.e.o. of dantes inc. Wife vice president/general manager. Children are the worker bees. And when they perform their tasks well, they are rewarded with more pay/wants/needs, as well as the possibility of earning more. Your answer, from my point of view, is no.
not State socialism necessarily anyway
the "capitalism" in anarcho-capitalism is kind of a misnomer, voluntary actions that seem kind of socialist are allowed too
No, because it is voluntary