I appreciate that you brought this up Beher, on account of how blatantly wrong it is.

"Humans are not perfect by any means and socialism will always lose out to liberty. For that which is artificial always loses out to natural elements eventually."

First let's see if we can divulge what you're trying to say from this message. That all methods of social construction are artificial, and that our natural state is one of individualism.

Now let us assume that in a way your are correct, that human in his/her most primal beast like state will be exclusively an individual.

From there let us examine the first things to happen. The development of the family structure. Which arose from the natural instinct to a), have kids, and b), protect said kids. This being what brought these wild humans together in the first place. The desire to find mates, and achieve protection through the mutual relationship with one another.

Now for your benefit we will assume that despite this the Man is still an individual. Solely out for his own benefit. The protection of the wife in important in that he views her has his way into the future. The bearer of his seed.

From here we have the development of primitive tribes. A further layering on of the social structure. All of sudden this primitive sort of social contract based on strength was being formed.

From here social structure develops further, into a bunch of proto-kings, these kings ruled over their subjects and protected them, who in exchange agreed to provide a share of what they made to their lord.

Out of this system of kings the ancient greek city states arose, here we truly can see a rise out of individualism. Were every man was no longer out for himself, and from it developed a culture, science, math, philosophy. The likes of which rivals modern civilization in its way. At the core of this idea was the city state. The polis. Your life was intrinsically a part of the polis, and it was understood you'd do what was needed to benefit.

Also out of this era, was Plato's Republic, one of the texts that was crucial to the foundation of your precious USA. The ideal state as portrayed there is one ruled by philosopher kings, who would met out to each person a role that they were most suited for, and they would all live for the attainment of wisdom and the glory of the polis.

Suffice to say this golden age of culture was one of collective good.

Coming out of this was the Roman Empire, an empire that was also strongly enamoured with this idea of doing what was good for Rome, even if perhaps it wasn't so good for yourself.

Now towards the end of the Roman Empire, we see the rise of Christianity a religion that focuses primarily on an individuals relationship to the divine, and suggests that the divine cares about the individual. As apposed to the much more detached Roman gods, the idea of community that they inspired. This coming about of individuality led to an increased division in Rome, and its unity power was weakened, from there Rome fell.

Back towards a society that resembles that of the Kings described earlier, this Feudalism. Its central idea is the vow, between a lord and his vassal, and is entirely focused on the idea of this individual relationship. To the extent that vassals often quarrelled with one another in very profound ways (See in the Song of Roland) because they had no relation to one another but simply to their prime lord.

During this time learning retreated to the monasteries and much of importance was lost or forgotten, a retreating of civilization and learning.

Towards the end of this period, the high middle ages we a saw a rise again of institutions and more collective principle based on the relation of everyone to one another, in addition to their lord. This led to the increased urbanization, a return of civilization and translation of the ancient ideas... as we pressed further on into a world were everyone was focused on the collective good-for king and country.


Having described the early rise and fall of civilization, I'll now return to your false assumption that the individual is in its primacy a individual being.

The baby- it cries for attention. It wants the attention of other human being. It wants to be loved and cared for. Humanity is naturally a social, and political animal.

This is why we form society, and don't simply live as hermits.

With society there needs to be a sort of social code, a way of relating to one another. That can be established either through a communal agreement, or by way of a government. For a society to establish learning, and create this strong culture. It has alway required a common end. A goal for everyone to work together for. In America it was at one point nationalism, In ancient greece the polis. This common end, and accepting your place in working to reach it, is at the heart of socialism. Its not about big government, or any of that. It is about living communal for a common purpose.

Which is the only way to create a learned cultured society.

Individualism is the opposite of this, a desire for everyone to reach their own end, without regard for others ends.

You wanted a constructive case for Socialism there you have something akin to it. A demonstration of the importance of communal principles. Now as we dive back down the rabbit hole. Consider America, a nation now so divided by the multicultural nature of it, that it no longer has a strong unifying principle. National pride, and Christendom, fall further and further from the public conscience. It falls further and further towards strictly individual ends.

And we decline... education is getting worse, abject corruption, greed, gluttony. It looks more and more like Rome near the end. Relying entirely on imports of food and luxuries from the empire abroad.

Is America the next Rome, is it doomed to fall. A slip even further into individual principle. I haven't the faintest clue.

I sure as hell hope it starts to crumble, and people try and save everything by banding together under a collective idea, and we shift towards a more social, collective existence. Its that or a shift towards what could be described as Feudal of sorts... and age of corporate robber baron. Offering money (Protection) in exchange for services (Your Loyalty).

-Rather then leave you with that cheerful thought I'll say one final message.

Yay Socialism!

-That's all folks.

Come to think about it I have something to add to my earlier definition of socialism.

It requires three things
A common end
Acceptance of your place in achieving the common end
Working for and being provided for by the community - I didn't really touch on this. But, it isn't exactly socialism if people work towards a common end that is not the community. So it this working for the community, and in exchange by being a part of the community having the community work for you.

I think you get the medal for the biggest wall of text I've ever seen. You've defeated obi on that, I'm impressed.

Damien. Interesting subject you raise about the fall of the Roman Empire. I think the link between the fall of Roman and the rise of Christianity can be easily refuted - the Eastern Roman Empire did not fall for another thousand years and indeed it went from strength to strength for a time.
I am also doubtful about your idea that Christianity led to individualism. If anything I would say that Christianity became the unifying factor in Europe when other institutions collapsed. Were medieval Europeans more individualistic than the Europeans of the Roman Empire?
I would argue that the fall of Roman was more to with rise of the German tribes, who both greatly influenced and challenged by Rome became more technologically advanced and more politically unified into much larger tribes thus dimishing the relative advantage enjoyed by Rome.

Not necessarily the rise of christianity in general, but the trend in the Roman empire towards, religion that emphasized the person. Mystery cults, and other such things. Which resulted in a much less unified Roman society. As the Roman citizen became more concerned with himself and less my life for Rome, you had a weakening of what could be described as the Roman backbone. While as you say the Gauls, become more unified, less of an individualist structure, and you had the rise of their political institutions, while at the same time, the Roman institutions were starting to crumble.

Christianity was the unifying factor in medieval europe. Of that I won't disagree. What I am saying is that Christianity was, when compared to the Roman religion, and Roman culture, a very individualist practice, It focused on the salvation of your soul, and your relationship to god.

While the individual european in the middle ages may have been similarly placed on a scale of individualism to those at the end of the Roman Empire, the core difference was the world they lived in. Social structure, was more individualist. It focused solely on the relationship between lord and vassal, personal honour, and the vow. While the institutions, the cities, and law collapsed. All of these institution, guards for the road, etc. had previously been provided under the unified Roman government and now the decline of the city, resulted in increased ruralization.

At this point christianity had become to uniform across europe it was a unifying factor. It was the closest thing they had left to a proper institution. However when civilization returns we see the rise of more institutions and collective social policies.

To refute your point on the eastern roman empire. It had in addition to a different climate to work with, a different socio-political structure. A structure that was much more unified, and has less infighting over individual differences. In fact at the time of the collapse of the east, many of the lords had begun to exploit their positions for personal gain and were no longer working for the benefit of the state. So in the end it was the increased individualist desires of those in positions of some power that led to the fall of the Eastern Empire a thousand years later. While its increased organization, and unity that led to its survival. In the western roman empire the upper class many who had fallen into mystery cults had the ability to try and further their end, while in the eastern roman empire they had no such ability.

Thank you Shock. I thought it was quite the achievement.

I'll see if I can't address the Eastern Roman Empire in the moment