: Does anyone actually believe that it is possible to have socialism without having the state?
[No! and that is the problem with socialism - you must have a brutal dictator to enslave all citizens in order to make them work. It CANNOT function any other way! If you don't believe this then try to run a socialistic company and see how long it lasts. There is nothing more unfair than sharing everything equally -- think about it!]
: Is it possible that anything but a powerful state could protect the people from the enslaving power of concentrated wealth?
[No the state does the enslaving. The most productive wealthy give the unmotivated and those lacking creativity jobs. Yes there are lazy
wealthy people who inherited their wealth and perhaps we should
take some of it away from them, but I cannot agree with the methods
proposed here. ]
: The concentration of wealth in the hands of the few is an inevitable result of human nature: those who are more materialistic and more predatory by nature will inevitably accumulate wealth,
[No! It will generally be the more creative and useful people who will
generate wealth. They will then ideally share their wealth with others in proportion to their usefulness and creativity -- just as it should be. They CANNOT accumulate wealth simply by being predatory! You make it sound like capitalism is identical to the Mob - That is unfair
and radically simplistic. You need to factor in law and order, etc., etc., etc.]
: and they will use that wealth to change their environment, arranging things such that it is easier for them to accumulate more and harder for others to accumulate any;
[This I partly agree with but Monopoly laws, etc are the way to deal with this problem. Removing all motivation for working is just plain stupid and will never work without a brutal dictator]
: while those who are less materialistic and less predatory by nature will eventually end up becoming the property of their more avaricious neighbors.
[No! They will be greatfull that a creative and motivated boss
has given them a job. They are not up to the task of taking care of themselves in any other way. Why do you call workers "property" --
are you just making this up as you go along? This is just silly. ]
: This sort of behavior is no doubt the result of evolutionary forces, and was at one time appropriate to the conditions that the eraliest humans lived with.
[Evolution? -- right "no doubt" LOL!]
: The question is, do we really want this brutal predatory instinct to continue to shape the future of the species, to the exclusion of less brutal possibilities? Can this brutal instinct continue to be the prime motivation of the species without pushing us to extinction anyway? Our environment, as a species, is no longer the wild plains of Pliocene Africa. Cephalization is a necessary step in the evolution of multicellular organisms, those colonies of symbiotic cells which did not evolve brains (simple nerve centers at first) eventually consumed themselves in cannibalistic frenzy and perished. Humanity has reached the point when it must evolve a brain, or it too will perish. That brain is nothing other than the state, a state which coordinates the economic activities of the world (as the brain coordinates the metabolic activities of the multicellular organism), and which prevents cells from attacking and consuming one another like cancers.
[God help us if we have to listen to the dead brain of a state dictatorial board. I'd rather be lead by the creative people who are able to establish and run functioning corporations. Sure they can get out of line sometimes (e.g. Microsoft), but the alternatives are far scarier monsters as they disregard human nature entirely]
McSpotlight: I do wish someone would actually define exactly what "human nature" is some day...