[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


Any number of ancient stateless tribes were essentially anarcho-socialist, i.e. there was no state, there was private property in personal goods, but collective ownership of most of the means of production, such as the land itself.

[/ QUOTE ]

this is like calling my household socialist rather than a reference to the societal structure. The fact that there were more than one tribe proves this point. The tribes divided themselves by means of private property. Different tribes made exchanges with other tribes with their private "social" property too. They were socialist in the same way a a kibbutz is socialist.

[/ QUOTE ]

They were socialist in that the members collectively owned the factors of production (or at least some of them), which is all that matters.

[/ QUOTE ]

its not all that matters relative to this debate.

this reminds of me of when i hear people talking about universal health care. I say "so you're going to give free health care to everyone in the universe?" They almost always say "no, only to those in our country, why would we use our nations private resources for other people unconditionally?"

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure I get your point. Are you saying it isn't socialism unless it includes the whole world? Well by that definition, yeah, socialism is impossible.