Socialism

Who we are is defined by our sacrifices as much as our sacrifices tend to define who we are - and yet we live in a world where many define who they are by what they have. And in a world where less continuously have more and more continuously have less, it is also sensible that a democratic sense of justice would give a degree of entitlement to that which the Law does not permit, particularly when the Law is sculpted to protect the less with more instead of the more with less. Social justice, not socialism, is the defining factor in the disputes that come about from the disparity.

The entire abortion debate is a matter of perspective. Considering all the political tea parties happening in the United States and the ensuing rhetoric over the past year, it is interesting to consider abortion in this regard:

If a woman's body is her own private property and the debate is over what a woman can do with her body, making abortion illegal or legal equates to the socialization of private property.

If a woman's body is not her own private property, human society has time traveled a few hundred years.

This is a first entry under 'scribbling'; it's where I'll start shoving incomplete (and sometimes unrelated)thoughts that I write on paper. They just haven't fleshed out into full entries yet.

Anarchy is the default state of democracy.

The only reason that we believe we are more enlightened than animals is because we have told ourselves that we are.

People don't buy art. They buy the stories that come with the art. This is why religious texts are full of stories. During periods of illiteracy, verbal stories are all that people had. And the love of these stories has resulted in bloodshed, charred flesh, eviscerations, beheadings and much more. Philosophy is so much more clean.

True democracy is socialism in disguise; if the masses are poor then the poor should have greater voice than the rich by virtue of democracy. That doesn't happen.

Chicken breasts aren't supposed to have bones in them. Those are ribs.

Code is not just Law, it is Intent.

We talk about the planet as if we're truly concerned, but it is really the survival of our species we're interested in. Maybe on the next planet we'll do better.

I don't know exactly why, but political and economic camps remain just that - with little or no common ground. There is democracy, and there is communism. There is capitalism, and there is socialism. And, for reasons that defy explanation, they are often viewed as polar opposites.

Consider a democracy like the United States, which also is capitalist. The religion that is dominant in the United States is Christianity, which has the Sermon on the Mount as one of the teachings (in at least some versions of Christianity). So, 'the meek shall inherit the Earth'. Is that statement socialist or democratic? Both. And neither. Democracy gives power to the mob. So does socialism. Where it varies is in the 'how'. Capitalism, as we see it working, takes money away from the mob and gives it to the few. Socialism takes money away from the mob and takes care of the mob.

'All men are created equal'. Socialism? Maybe. Egalitarianism? Yes. Democracy? According to many nations, yes. Communism? Yes.

And yet, each political and economic ideology seems to have trouble coming to grips with all of this. Why? Perhaps because people are too busy defending their camps and attacking the other camps to actually try to find the common ground and move forward.

Random pointer: mobile vulgus is the origin of 'mob'; the movable common people.

The roots of economic and political ideologies all tie to a common factor - people. And each method has it's strengths and weaknesses in either theory or, more usually, practice.

Maybe the best thing to do would be to toss the labels to the wind and actually focus on what is most important to people- after all, that's what started this mess. A return to sanity would be refreshing; all too often I hear that one ism or acy is bad and another ism and acy is good.