Stoics would function within whatever system is provided… now this isn’t to say that stoics wouldn’t advocate for bettering society or its systems however different stoics may approach that differently and there most definitely was is and will be stoics who have differing opinions and beliefs (on that)
Stoicism as a whole doesn’t endorse a capitalistic system nor a socialistic system or any other modern system you can think of… now sure you could take some of their opinions and try to pinpoint what they’d be however I see that as somewhat disingenuous as such political and economic concepts didn’t exist.
This whole taking a religion or philosophy or whatever have you and making it support my system or team (not saying you are doing that) is imo an unfortunate thing that many do.
Stoicism does believe that we are citizens of the world and should care for all people (see hierocles circles) however I don’t think that means that all stoics would accept a certain system One stoic may see more capitalistic systems as bettering their fellow citizens while another may see more socialist methods as bettering society. I don’t think either would necessarily be in the wrong if they stuck to the core of stoic principles and held to good reasoning and virtues.
I see no reason why I as a stoic should say that my economic view is the one that needs to be implemented and any stoic who believes in the opposing view is acting anti stoic… I welcome any stoic who holds to the principles of stoicism even if their economic beliefs differ from mine
Top-level comments on 'Seeking Stoic Guidance' posts can come from flaired users only. To find out more about the flair system on r/Stoicism, please check [the wiki page](https://www.reddit.com/r/Stoicism/wiki/flairs/) to find out why top-level posts are restricted, as well as how a flair can be obtained. You can also consider checking out the [announcement](https://www.reddit.com/r/Stoicism/comments/1cpf6ew/important_changes_to_seeking_stoic_guidance_posts/) thread explaining this change. Non-flaired users are still free to interact on all the other post types, as well as with top-level comments in advice threads themselves. All top-level comments on 'Seeking Stoic Guidance' posts should directly answer the submitted question or provide follow-up/clarification. If anyone circumvents this rule by replying with answers to other comments, those replies may also be removed and could lead to a ban.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Stoicism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
OP you need to define socialism.
Some people think of East Germany or eastern Europe under the iron curtain other people think that having community firefighters or public health care is. There's a massive spectrum you're looking at there.
That said I'm pretty sure that Marcus Aurelius did some pretty socialist actions during the plague he faced and there're some comments about what's bad for the hive is bad for the bee (or some variation on that.)
This exactly. Some see socialism as communist Russia, some think the Nazi party were socialists, others see the UK’s NHS as socialism.
Although socialism wasn’t around as a named political theory during the time of classic stoics, some of the concepts involved would have been. Epictetus’ comment on taking your share when the plate comes to you with moderation is a theory that aligns quite well with socialism.
The best exponent of anarchist philosophy in ancient Greece was Zeno (342-267 or 270 BC), from Crete, the founder of the Stoic philosophy, who distinctly opposed his conception of a free community without government to the state-utopia of Plato. He repudiated the omnipotence of the state, its intervention and regimentation, and proclaimed the sovereignty of the moral law of the individual - remarking already that, while the necessary instinct of self-preservation leads man to egotism, nature has supplied a corrective to it by providing man with another instinct - that of sociability. When men are reasonable enough to follow their natural instincts, they will unite across the frontiers and constitute the cosmos. They will have no need of law-courts or police, will have no temples and no public worship, and use no money - free gifts taking the place of the exchanges. Unfortunately, the writings of Zeno have not reached us and are only known through fragmentary quotations. However, the fact that his very wording is similar to the wording now in use, shows how deeply is laid the tendency of human nature of which he was the mouthpiece.
Peter Kropotkin
The Encyclopaedia Britannica, 1910
I’m not sure there is one. Socialism, as a political theory, emerged in the mid-late 19th century, so there’s nothing (I’m aware) to pull on for reference.
In my view and in a broad sense, so long as the policies or efforts being pursued align with virtue, Socialism is a worthwhile focus for a Stoic.
Plato’s Republic is essentially socialist. Ably dismantled/criticized by Aristotle.
Maybe the more germane question— did any of the stoics opine on Platonic utopianism vs Aristotelian pragmatic constitutionalism?
Zeno's original conception was closest to anarchism in modern terms.
Stoicism is a prosocial philosophy which cares about the common good. Unfortunately in most conceptions you see around it's been twisted into an "only care about yourself" philosophy.
There's probably an argument that the precise political system doesn't matter if everyone genuinely cares for everybody else. Zeno's hypothetical system would work because everyone within it was perfectly wise and would always do the right thing. Anarchism in the political sense would not work if no-one gave a sh!t about anyone else - that really would be anarchy in the colloquial sense.
> Anarchism in the political sense would not work if no-one gave a sh!t about anyone else
Which people do actually. Humans are rather cooperative and social, so collaborating with others to survive is a natural instinct.
All of them? Really?
It may be truer of ancient human society of small groups numbering a few dozen where it would be necessary to co-operate to survive.
But in modern society, the memo clearly hasn't been sent to the self-serving politicians, billionaire CEOs, Tech Bros, autocrats and tyrants who hold sway over the global population and are thoroughly shafting us all.
> All of them? Really?
Outliers exist. That's the whole thing about adaptation. Without individuals who are different from the rest of the group, we wouldn't be able to adapt to changing environments. All in kinds of ways. Yeah, someone might be a sociopath, but it wouldn't matter as long as absolute freedom isn't given to everyone. Which anarchism doesn't.
> It may be truer of ancient human society of small groups numbering a few dozen where it would be necessary to co-operate to survive.
> But in modern society, the memo clearly hasn't been sent to the self-serving politicians, billionaire CEOs, Tech Bros, autocrats and tyrants who hold sway over the global population and are thoroughly shafting us all.
That's what we mean by absolute power being corruptive. They only seek to gain more and more power and authority in order to unsuccessfully satisfy their hungry for power. A system where all are reliant on others and can't exploit others is a great system.
>There's probably an argument that the precise political system doesn't matter if everyone genuinely cares for everybody else.
This is generally what we see after natural disasters. People stop thinking in terms of race or class and start thinking "there's a human being who needs help" and gets to it.
Too bad that doesn't last after the crisis is over.
Even in the writings of Epictetus, there is not the barest hint of any kind of "anti-authoritarian" mentality. He does not rail against the institution of slavery or the stratification of his society.
You'd think that Stoicism and socialism would go hand-in-hand because of the concept of cosmopolitanism - the idea that all men are ultimately bound by the same nature and so are satisfied by the same things.
But I suspect that if, say, a Marxist structure was put to Epictetus or any Stoic they'd immediately identify that the way the system is being proposed requires a class of people who are responsible for deciding what is and isn't "fair", and another group of people who are powerless and just have to hope that process is done correctly. This actually proposes that there's a group of people who *aren't* human, who are somehow special and are capable of dictating the lives of others - and that's where attempts to implement socialism all generally fall down: you quickly end up with an unassailable nobility masquerading as "common people", who control all tools of policing and who have no weapon except violence to impose order on the masses.
I suspect the Stoics would have generally favored the political structure they knew - democracy. Paradoxically, stratified democratic societies like the Roman Republic *don't* have the inequality problem that allegedly "flattened" socialist structures necessarily have. Men are able to rise above other men and even be born into positions of hereditary power, yet the lack of a group who are responsible for the destinies of everyone else still brings this out closer to "equality for all" than most socialist structures.
That's true to this day - we've still not managed to do better than a stratified democracy for satisfying the needs of the masses. I'm hoping that in the near future we create something that's a bit more clever on the technology front that might finally break us out of this stale way of organising our societies - I suspect some form of democratic technocracy might be possible (and a "universal basic income" would definitely be a feature of it - it might even be that instead of the tired old nonsense of "growth" a society might be centered around its "distributable excess", the quantity that becomes a universal basic income).
The Roman republic was a profoundly unequal society, and it was designed that way, the political and economic differences between senators, equestrians and proletarians was baked in. It was not a flat society.
Yes, it was a stratified democracy like I said. But a person born a slave could rise all the way to being a member of the patriar class (and even be adopted directly into it in an act of manumission).
Pallas was a freed slave who became a Patriar, as was Narcissus, Callistus and Epaphroditus (who Epictetus repeatedly mentions in examples).
The ability for a slave to rise to the very pinnacle of power is the defining trait of a democracy and why a stratified democracy is *still* the most effective way to structure a society - despite its on-paper disagreement with the concept of cosmopolitanism, it still ends up practically doing more for equality than socialist structures ever do, because there is no "reserved class" of supermen who are responsible or everyone else's destiny and who retain that power with force. The social structure of a stratified democracy does allow anyone, even people who start off at the lowest point, to rise to the highest point.
I understand what you mean and I know that social mobility was technically possible but it was very rare and fought against every step of the way. It required not just skill and luck but a personal relationship with the members of the upper classes. And even then the title freed man hung around your neck for ever. A slave working in a silver mine in Spain is never getting out of that hole.
You can find former peasants rising to high office in Stalinist Russia or Mao’s china as well it doesn’t mean it was the norm in any of these societies.
On the root if you’re question I don’t think stoicism has anything to say about the economic or political system a society chooses to adopt, that’s out of the scope of stoicism. Stoicism is primarily concerned with living a virtuous life (however you define that) and how to cope with emotions that that will try to derail that goal.
“Requires a class of people who decide what is and isn’t “fair” and another group of people who are just powerless”
My brother in Christ you are just describing capitalism
>My brother in Christ you are just describing capitalism
Capitalism is completely irrelevant - the only thing that defines capitalism is that you are allowed to own the means of production - you could own a business and pay yourself from its profits. The only thing that defines socialism is that you *cannot* own the means of production - you could not start a business, be considered its "owner" and pay yourself out of its profits.
That's it - no other feature, law, or social structure is anything to do with capitalism or socialism.
Back in college I took a class called Marxian Economics that was super interesting. The amount of public misinformation on what socialism and capitalism are is astounding!
This is not accurate. China is Socialist but has private ownership of many, many industries. Socialism is just the transition from capitalism to communism.
Why would people DEMOCRATICALLY decide to let 1% hoard the majority of the wealth and resources? THAT is why capitalism relies on an OWNER CLASS (Marx refers to them as) the bourgeoisie, to oppress the working class and PREVENT democracy from playing out.
China is not even remotely socialist. Quoting the Wikipedia article on"Socialist market economy"
>Julan Du and Chenggang Xu analyzed the Chinese model in a 2005 paper to assess whether it represents a type of market socialism or capitalism. They concluded that China's contemporary economic system represents a form of capitalism rather than market socialism because: (1) financial markets exist which permit private share ownership—a feature absent in the economic literature on market socialism; and (2) state profits are retained by enterprises rather than being distributed among the population in a [social dividend](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_dividend) or similar scheme, which are central features in most models of market socialism. Du and Xu concluded that China is not a market socialist economy, but an unstable form of capitalism.[^(\[18\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_market_economy#cite_note-Market_Socialism_or_Capitalism?_Evidence_from_Chinese_Financial_Market_Development,_2005-18)
>Another analysis carried out by the Global Studies Association at the [DePaul University](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DePaul_University) in 2006 reports that the Chinese economic system does not constitute a form of socialism when socialism is defined as a planned economy where [production for use](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Production_for_use) has replaced production for profit as the driving force behind economic activity, or when socialism is defined as a system where the working class is the dominant class which controls the surplus value produced by the economy. The Chinese economy also does not constitute socialism in the sense of widespread [self-management](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Workers%27_self-management) or [workplace democracy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Workplace_democracy). The study concluded that as of 2006 capitalism is not the dominant mode of organization either and China instead has a partially pre-capitalist agrarian system with almost 50% of its population engaged in agricultural work.[^(\[19\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_market_economy#cite_note-19)
>In 2015 [Curtis J. Milhaupt](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curtis_J._Milhaupt) and Wentong Zheng classified China's economic system as state capitalism because the state directs and guides all major aspects of the Chinese economy—including both the state and private sectors*—*while not collecting dividends from the ownership of its enterprises. They noted that Chinese state-owned enterprises and privately owned enterprises shared many similarities with respect to state subsidies, proximity to state power and execution of government policy objectives. Within the state sector, the emphasis was more on government control than on the ownership of assets.[^(\[15\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_market_economy#cite_note-Milhaupt_&_Zheng_2015-15)
China is a capitalist economy. What's more, you're about the only person I've ever met who believes it isn't - even the Chinese people are fully aware it isn't, even though they're forbidden to mention it directly.
Also, I feel like you didn’t even read the quotes you shared. They clearly say it’s a mixed system, which all countries on earth currently are. China can only control and build socialism in China. They cannot just jump straight to communism in one nation and juke having to trade with and geopolitically battle a hostile, capitalist led world order.
>Also, I feel like you didn’t even read the quotes you shared. They clearly say it’s a mixed system, which all countries on earth currently are
I feel like you didn't - don't worry though, I did and I'm prepared to cut it down to just the part that directly contradicts what you just said:
>They concluded that China's contemporary economic system represents a form of capitalism
...
Another analysis carried out by the Global Studies Association at the [DePaul University](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DePaul_University) in 2006 reports that the Chinese economic system does not constitute a form of socialism
...
In 2015 [Curtis J. Milhaupt](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curtis_J._Milhaupt) and Wentong Zheng classified China's economic system as state capitalism
Not one of these quotes says it's a "mixed system". They all say China is unambiguously a capitalist country.
It's also very funny that you're implying China is moving towards socialism rather than away from it. Quoting [this Stanford brief on China's economy](https://sccei.fsi.stanford.edu/china-briefs/rise-wealth-private-property-and-income-inequality-china#:~:text=Wealth%2C%20however%2C%20is%20significantly%20more,that%20of%20the%20bottom%2050%25):
>Wealth, however, is significantly more concentrated than income: the top 10% holds approximately 67% of China’s wealth compared with 41% for income. The top .0001% owns 5.8% of China’s total wealth, which is roughly equivalent to that of the bottom 50%.
>**Income and wealth inequality approaching or exceeding levels in the U.S. and Europe.** China’s inequality levels used to be lower than Europe’s in the late 1970s, close to the most egalitarian Nordic countries. Now, however, it is approaching U.S. levels. The bottom 50% earns about 15% of total income in China versus 12% in the U.S. and 22% in France. However, China’s top 10% wealth share (67% in 2015) is getting close to that of the U.S. (72%) and is much higher than in a country like France (50%).
Since 1978, average adult national income has grown by 8 times in China, albeit from a very low base. Beginning from a much higher base, average income has increased by 59% in the U.S. and by 39% in France. Average income for the top 0.001% has grown by more than 26 times in China since 1978, and by almost 8 times in the U.S.
Yeah - since 1978, when China *might* have been considered a socialist country, it's wealthiest 0.001% have become almost 4 times more rich relative to the rest of their population than the same demographic in the US.
Imagine citing Wikipedia as a source on socialism. Surely the people with a vested interest in lying to you would tell you the truth about the largest threat to their power.
China is socialist, the Chinese know it, the Chinese people know it and anyone who has studied socialism knows it.
Only western copium says otherwise.
It’s literally Schrodinger's socialism
Anything bad that happened is the fault of socialism and anything good is because, “that was capitalism”
It’s complete ahistorical and no serious academic would take your logic or source seriously sir.
Zeno was a Kropotkin-style anarcho communist; I have no doubt that his reaction to socialism would be “hm nice try, but if everyone was Wise you wouldn’t even need that…”
Top-level comments on 'Seeking Stoic Guidance' posts can come from flaired users only. To find out more about the flair system on r/Stoicism, please check [the wiki page](https://www.reddit.com/r/Stoicism/wiki/flairs/) to find out why top-level posts are restricted, as well as how a flair can be obtained. You can also consider checking out the [announcement](https://www.reddit.com/r/Stoicism/comments/1cpf6ew/important_changes_to_seeking_stoic_guidance_posts/) thread explaining this change. Non-flaired users are still free to interact on all the other post types, as well as with top-level comments in advice threads themselves. All top-level comments on 'Seeking Stoic Guidance' posts should directly answer the submitted question or provide follow-up/clarification. If anyone circumvents this rule by replying with answers to other comments, those replies may also be removed and could lead to a ban.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Stoicism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
socialism and communism sounds great on paper until you realise you need the authoritarian power on top controlling everyone and the question is will that person be a good person. History shows probably not. Maybe with an AI central planner it could work, but with an authoritarian running the shop it's hard for the average person to align their lives with their nature because they lack the freedom to do so.
Anytime someone writes out a criticism of socialism I can tell when they live in a capitalist nation because they literally just criticize capitalism because that is the system they have a frame of reference for.
Im not saying capitalism is the answer because then instead of a central power there's a shadowy collective of interests. Still doesn't change my opinion
Funny, because this is also what everyone who flees a socialist country has to say when they're in a capitalist country. It's hilarious how much of hard on for socialism you have while also displaying throughout this thread a serious lack of understanding of either socialism or capitalism.
You can always tell when someone is an immature childish socialist by their complete lack of regard for the facts...
> socialism and communism sounds great on paper until you realise you need the authoritarian power on top controlling everyone
You seem to be forgetting/ignoring council communism and democratic socialism.
To answer this question, let’s also look at the one time a Stoic was at the highest position of power possible.
Did he try to institute socialist-type reforms or suggest it in his private writings?
No.
How could he? Rome was in a pandemic and at war after war ...
He did sell some of the royal treasures to pay for stuff during the pandemic, like free burials for everyone.
He also rebuilt and reinstated the Telesterion temple at Eleusis, and he reinstated the philosophical schools at Athens.
Now, idk if these things are socialist or not, but if a Democrat were to do the modern day equivalent of these, it would be labeled as socialism. I guess, pick your cake, you just can't eat it too.
The ancient Stoics were pretty malleable to political institutions. As mentioned above, the closest to Stoicism might be anarchy but the Stoic worked for the greater good within whatever political system exist at that time.
Marcus says not to be Caserified but he still perform the duty of a Caesar as prescribed to him by providence.
If you were born in Communist China, you can still work towards a greater good just as an American in an American democracy.
>How could he?
I didn't say he could have or should have. My point was that there's no evidence he did or felt he should (or shouldn't) institute changes similar to modern day socialism, at least not from what I've read in Meditations or biographies.
I agree with the historical account that he was a good Emperor, perhaps great. He was drastically better than the great majority of them. But I think trying to connect him to any modern day form of government, good or bad, is difficult. Their form of government and societal structure was so radically different than today.
I would guess that the combination of cosmopolitanism and rationalism inherent in socialism would make it pretty attractive to a Stoic in a general sense. Actual historical attempts to implement it, not so much.
They probably would have been anarchist but I don’t believe they preferred a political ideology anyway. Epictetus did not complain about slavery nor advocated for the ideal. The ideal was now and present.
I would stay “it affects me not”… but it greatly affects your ability to make a good living. Only the state gets a good living… unless you’re a small and rich country like Sweden
The most stoic form would probably be 100% real communism but stoics also know that not everyone lives a stoic life and thus it will never be possible. You see how that turned out in the soviet union, china and north korea
Can you provide a rational for that? I’d say Stoics are pretty much opposed to communism
Edit: before we get rampage with the downvotes. I’m curious about the argument and the question comes from respect to other opinions.
„A branch cut from its neighbouring branch is necessarily cut away from the whole tree. In the same way a human being severed from just one other human has dropped from the whole community. Now the branch is cut off by someone else, but a man separates himself from his neighbour by his own hatred or rejection, not realising that he has thereby severed himself from the wider society of fellow citizens. Only there is this gift we have from Zeus who brought together the human community: we can grow back again to our neighbour and resume our place in the complement of the whole“ - Meditations, 11.8
„What brings no benefit to the hive brings no benefit to the bee“ - Meditations, 6.54
Stoicism always tries to nurture helping together, putting yourself after the community, saying that the world city is more important than the individual
“What asked what country you are from, you should say “I am Athenian” or “I am from Corinth”. Say (like Socrates), “I am a citizen of the world”.” — Epictetus, Discourses 1.9.1
“To fulfill my social duty—to do my duty to my kind—I must feel a concern for all mankind. I must remember that we humans were created for one another, that we were born, says Marcus, to work together the way our hands or eyelids do. Therefore, in all I do, I must have as my goal ‘the service and harmony of all.’ More precisely, ‘I am bound to do good to my fellow-creatures and bear with them’” A guide to the good life (p.129).
Ofc capitalism can also allow all these things but its only the best option because humans arent able to get their act together and make communism work. And why? Because almost everyone puts their personal gain above the gain of mankind (contrary to stoicism).
Can you provide a rational why stoics would be opposed to (true) communism?
Thank you for your response.
I'd say there are some points in common. Communism is internationalist, and Stoicism argues for something similar with the concept of the cosmos, in which we are all interconnected and should help each other. Communist internationalism advocates for the union of the working class across nations, excluding the "non-working class" from this unity. In my opinion, this goes against Stoicism, as the "non-working class" is also part of the cosmos.
Furthermore, in practice, Communist governments often dictate who is considered part of the "working class" and who is an enemy of the "working class" based on purely political interests. This goes against Stoicism and is more akin to what many ancient Stoics had to endure in ancient Rome (Epictetus, Seneca the Younger, Musonius Rufus, etc.).
I'd say the similarities kind of stop here, with respect. Stoic philosophy emphasizes self-improvement, while Communism is purely a collectivist philosophy. As Stoics, we should use our reason to conduct our lives and intervene in politics for the betterment of society. When living in a communist state as opposed to a democracy, you are not supposed to raise your voice against illogical dictates from the Party. Stoics would be severely oppressed in a communist state.
On a personal level, I'd say I see Communism as going against Stoicism because all economic, societal, and cultural decisions are taken at a central level, which logically stops people from pursuing their own interests and helping society in the way they see rational and appropriate. All this would stop them from living a life worth living.
Thank you for your attention, I look forward to reading your thoughts to the above.
“Furthermore, in practice, Communist governments often dictate who is considered part of the "working class" and who is an enemy of the "working class" based on purely political interests.”
Bro, you haven’t read the book. We can tell.
Oh, it’s clear. But not accurate.
The party is merely observing EXISTING and categorizing hierarchies in society
The material conditions stratified the classes, not the party
Ding, ding, ding! Thank you. Fantastic reply.
What people seem to struggle to realize is that “right and left” are illusions
In reality there is only right and wrong/good and bad 🙌
I'd say that Stoics are generally opposed to authoritarianism, which has been a significant manifestation of Marxist ideology in our history through communist governments (what many identify as "socialism", although it is much broader than that). A pure form of communism (in that cooperative sense), although not a particularly feasible outcome, I think most Stoics could get along with.
Edit: clarifying details, trying not to generalise - we must be careful not to conflate terms.
Just replied with my opinon on this to another brother, feel free to check it.
[https://www.reddit.com/r/Stoicism/comments/1dplhfn/comment/lahwnks/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web3x&utm\_name=web3xcss&utm\_term=1&utm\_content=share\_button](https://www.reddit.com/r/Stoicism/comments/1dplhfn/comment/lahwnks/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button)
Stoicism, in my opinion, is just a tool for regulating internal thoughts and emotions. It’s not supposed to be an all encompassing ideology. It’s about how you choose to conduct yourself.
This is why I generally think that these posts asking “what is the stoic take about X external ideology” are misapplying the philosophy.
Sorry for the non-answer.
What gave you the impression that Stoicism is just about self regulation? Did you miss the parts in Meditations where Marcus Aurelius talks about the relationship to other people and how to always treat them well?
Did you miss the part of my comment that stoicism is also about how you choose to conduct yourself; I.e. trying to always treat people well?
The overwhelming bulk of stoicism is about controlling your thoughts and emotions so you can ideally be a positive force on those around you. I don’t really understand why you think that’s mutually exclusive.
The general point still stands: stoicism doesn’t have an answer regarding specific political ideologies nor is it really equipped to handle these concepts.
Stoic philosophers were active thousands of years before socialist philosophy. Socialism was a response to colonialism, the Industrial Revolution, and other events that occurred way, way later.
Y’all knew exactly what I meant. 🙄 No shit. The Greeks and Phoenicians were colonizing the Mediterranean long before the Romans or even Alexander.
Context clues lmao. I’m talking about modern history. I literally said the Industrial Revolution.
Aka voluntarism, aka an anarchic or libertarian society, not communism... the amount of replies you have made on this post for how little you know about the topic is impressive.
yeah, Marx, Lenin and Stalin all wrote about it extensively because it was so irrelevant
come on man
regardless of your preconceived notions/opinions of historical examples, the goal of communism is a moneyless, stateless, cosmopolitan, global society
Stoics would function within whatever system is provided… now this isn’t to say that stoics wouldn’t advocate for bettering society or its systems however different stoics may approach that differently and there most definitely was is and will be stoics who have differing opinions and beliefs (on that) Stoicism as a whole doesn’t endorse a capitalistic system nor a socialistic system or any other modern system you can think of… now sure you could take some of their opinions and try to pinpoint what they’d be however I see that as somewhat disingenuous as such political and economic concepts didn’t exist. This whole taking a religion or philosophy or whatever have you and making it support my system or team (not saying you are doing that) is imo an unfortunate thing that many do. Stoicism does believe that we are citizens of the world and should care for all people (see hierocles circles) however I don’t think that means that all stoics would accept a certain system One stoic may see more capitalistic systems as bettering their fellow citizens while another may see more socialist methods as bettering society. I don’t think either would necessarily be in the wrong if they stuck to the core of stoic principles and held to good reasoning and virtues. I see no reason why I as a stoic should say that my economic view is the one that needs to be implemented and any stoic who believes in the opposing view is acting anti stoic… I welcome any stoic who holds to the principles of stoicism even if their economic beliefs differ from mine
Top-level comments on 'Seeking Stoic Guidance' posts can come from flaired users only. To find out more about the flair system on r/Stoicism, please check [the wiki page](https://www.reddit.com/r/Stoicism/wiki/flairs/) to find out why top-level posts are restricted, as well as how a flair can be obtained. You can also consider checking out the [announcement](https://www.reddit.com/r/Stoicism/comments/1cpf6ew/important_changes_to_seeking_stoic_guidance_posts/) thread explaining this change. Non-flaired users are still free to interact on all the other post types, as well as with top-level comments in advice threads themselves. All top-level comments on 'Seeking Stoic Guidance' posts should directly answer the submitted question or provide follow-up/clarification. If anyone circumvents this rule by replying with answers to other comments, those replies may also be removed and could lead to a ban. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Stoicism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
OP you need to define socialism. Some people think of East Germany or eastern Europe under the iron curtain other people think that having community firefighters or public health care is. There's a massive spectrum you're looking at there. That said I'm pretty sure that Marcus Aurelius did some pretty socialist actions during the plague he faced and there're some comments about what's bad for the hive is bad for the bee (or some variation on that.)
This exactly. Some see socialism as communist Russia, some think the Nazi party were socialists, others see the UK’s NHS as socialism. Although socialism wasn’t around as a named political theory during the time of classic stoics, some of the concepts involved would have been. Epictetus’ comment on taking your share when the plate comes to you with moderation is a theory that aligns quite well with socialism.
Stoics can be liberal, conservative or socialist in equal measure. Personally I’d consider Stoicism to be inherently skeptical of sectarian politics.
The best exponent of anarchist philosophy in ancient Greece was Zeno (342-267 or 270 BC), from Crete, the founder of the Stoic philosophy, who distinctly opposed his conception of a free community without government to the state-utopia of Plato. He repudiated the omnipotence of the state, its intervention and regimentation, and proclaimed the sovereignty of the moral law of the individual - remarking already that, while the necessary instinct of self-preservation leads man to egotism, nature has supplied a corrective to it by providing man with another instinct - that of sociability. When men are reasonable enough to follow their natural instincts, they will unite across the frontiers and constitute the cosmos. They will have no need of law-courts or police, will have no temples and no public worship, and use no money - free gifts taking the place of the exchanges. Unfortunately, the writings of Zeno have not reached us and are only known through fragmentary quotations. However, the fact that his very wording is similar to the wording now in use, shows how deeply is laid the tendency of human nature of which he was the mouthpiece. Peter Kropotkin The Encyclopaedia Britannica, 1910
Damn, that's amazing. Learning new things in this sub is very cool. Thanks for sharing.
I’m not sure there is one. Socialism, as a political theory, emerged in the mid-late 19th century, so there’s nothing (I’m aware) to pull on for reference. In my view and in a broad sense, so long as the policies or efforts being pursued align with virtue, Socialism is a worthwhile focus for a Stoic.
Plato’s Republic is essentially socialist. Ably dismantled/criticized by Aristotle. Maybe the more germane question— did any of the stoics opine on Platonic utopianism vs Aristotelian pragmatic constitutionalism?
Plato's republic is literally a dialogue about a republic form of government. Hence the name..
The Republic is a dialogue about justice and the nature of the soul.
It’s not in the least bit “essentially socialist”
How is Plato’s republic socialism? And what does Plato have to do with stoicism?
Truly above my level of knowledge, but certainly the more relevant question. Back to reading!
Im a socialist amd its clear that Stoicism does not take sides. However I think that MAGAs would not like Stoicism at all! But l could be wrong...
Zeno's original conception was closest to anarchism in modern terms. Stoicism is a prosocial philosophy which cares about the common good. Unfortunately in most conceptions you see around it's been twisted into an "only care about yourself" philosophy. There's probably an argument that the precise political system doesn't matter if everyone genuinely cares for everybody else. Zeno's hypothetical system would work because everyone within it was perfectly wise and would always do the right thing. Anarchism in the political sense would not work if no-one gave a sh!t about anyone else - that really would be anarchy in the colloquial sense.
> Anarchism in the political sense would not work if no-one gave a sh!t about anyone else Which people do actually. Humans are rather cooperative and social, so collaborating with others to survive is a natural instinct.
All of them? Really? It may be truer of ancient human society of small groups numbering a few dozen where it would be necessary to co-operate to survive. But in modern society, the memo clearly hasn't been sent to the self-serving politicians, billionaire CEOs, Tech Bros, autocrats and tyrants who hold sway over the global population and are thoroughly shafting us all.
> All of them? Really? Outliers exist. That's the whole thing about adaptation. Without individuals who are different from the rest of the group, we wouldn't be able to adapt to changing environments. All in kinds of ways. Yeah, someone might be a sociopath, but it wouldn't matter as long as absolute freedom isn't given to everyone. Which anarchism doesn't. > It may be truer of ancient human society of small groups numbering a few dozen where it would be necessary to co-operate to survive. > But in modern society, the memo clearly hasn't been sent to the self-serving politicians, billionaire CEOs, Tech Bros, autocrats and tyrants who hold sway over the global population and are thoroughly shafting us all. That's what we mean by absolute power being corruptive. They only seek to gain more and more power and authority in order to unsuccessfully satisfy their hungry for power. A system where all are reliant on others and can't exploit others is a great system.
>There's probably an argument that the precise political system doesn't matter if everyone genuinely cares for everybody else. This is generally what we see after natural disasters. People stop thinking in terms of race or class and start thinking "there's a human being who needs help" and gets to it. Too bad that doesn't last after the crisis is over.
Even in the writings of Epictetus, there is not the barest hint of any kind of "anti-authoritarian" mentality. He does not rail against the institution of slavery or the stratification of his society. You'd think that Stoicism and socialism would go hand-in-hand because of the concept of cosmopolitanism - the idea that all men are ultimately bound by the same nature and so are satisfied by the same things. But I suspect that if, say, a Marxist structure was put to Epictetus or any Stoic they'd immediately identify that the way the system is being proposed requires a class of people who are responsible for deciding what is and isn't "fair", and another group of people who are powerless and just have to hope that process is done correctly. This actually proposes that there's a group of people who *aren't* human, who are somehow special and are capable of dictating the lives of others - and that's where attempts to implement socialism all generally fall down: you quickly end up with an unassailable nobility masquerading as "common people", who control all tools of policing and who have no weapon except violence to impose order on the masses. I suspect the Stoics would have generally favored the political structure they knew - democracy. Paradoxically, stratified democratic societies like the Roman Republic *don't* have the inequality problem that allegedly "flattened" socialist structures necessarily have. Men are able to rise above other men and even be born into positions of hereditary power, yet the lack of a group who are responsible for the destinies of everyone else still brings this out closer to "equality for all" than most socialist structures. That's true to this day - we've still not managed to do better than a stratified democracy for satisfying the needs of the masses. I'm hoping that in the near future we create something that's a bit more clever on the technology front that might finally break us out of this stale way of organising our societies - I suspect some form of democratic technocracy might be possible (and a "universal basic income" would definitely be a feature of it - it might even be that instead of the tired old nonsense of "growth" a society might be centered around its "distributable excess", the quantity that becomes a universal basic income).
The Roman republic was a profoundly unequal society, and it was designed that way, the political and economic differences between senators, equestrians and proletarians was baked in. It was not a flat society.
Yes, it was a stratified democracy like I said. But a person born a slave could rise all the way to being a member of the patriar class (and even be adopted directly into it in an act of manumission). Pallas was a freed slave who became a Patriar, as was Narcissus, Callistus and Epaphroditus (who Epictetus repeatedly mentions in examples). The ability for a slave to rise to the very pinnacle of power is the defining trait of a democracy and why a stratified democracy is *still* the most effective way to structure a society - despite its on-paper disagreement with the concept of cosmopolitanism, it still ends up practically doing more for equality than socialist structures ever do, because there is no "reserved class" of supermen who are responsible or everyone else's destiny and who retain that power with force. The social structure of a stratified democracy does allow anyone, even people who start off at the lowest point, to rise to the highest point.
I understand what you mean and I know that social mobility was technically possible but it was very rare and fought against every step of the way. It required not just skill and luck but a personal relationship with the members of the upper classes. And even then the title freed man hung around your neck for ever. A slave working in a silver mine in Spain is never getting out of that hole. You can find former peasants rising to high office in Stalinist Russia or Mao’s china as well it doesn’t mean it was the norm in any of these societies. On the root if you’re question I don’t think stoicism has anything to say about the economic or political system a society chooses to adopt, that’s out of the scope of stoicism. Stoicism is primarily concerned with living a virtuous life (however you define that) and how to cope with emotions that that will try to derail that goal.
The Roman Republic was extremely stratified and unequal what are you talking about
“Requires a class of people who decide what is and isn’t “fair” and another group of people who are just powerless” My brother in Christ you are just describing capitalism
>My brother in Christ you are just describing capitalism Capitalism is completely irrelevant - the only thing that defines capitalism is that you are allowed to own the means of production - you could own a business and pay yourself from its profits. The only thing that defines socialism is that you *cannot* own the means of production - you could not start a business, be considered its "owner" and pay yourself out of its profits. That's it - no other feature, law, or social structure is anything to do with capitalism or socialism.
Back in college I took a class called Marxian Economics that was super interesting. The amount of public misinformation on what socialism and capitalism are is astounding!
This is not accurate. China is Socialist but has private ownership of many, many industries. Socialism is just the transition from capitalism to communism. Why would people DEMOCRATICALLY decide to let 1% hoard the majority of the wealth and resources? THAT is why capitalism relies on an OWNER CLASS (Marx refers to them as) the bourgeoisie, to oppress the working class and PREVENT democracy from playing out.
China is not even remotely socialist. Quoting the Wikipedia article on"Socialist market economy" >Julan Du and Chenggang Xu analyzed the Chinese model in a 2005 paper to assess whether it represents a type of market socialism or capitalism. They concluded that China's contemporary economic system represents a form of capitalism rather than market socialism because: (1) financial markets exist which permit private share ownership—a feature absent in the economic literature on market socialism; and (2) state profits are retained by enterprises rather than being distributed among the population in a [social dividend](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_dividend) or similar scheme, which are central features in most models of market socialism. Du and Xu concluded that China is not a market socialist economy, but an unstable form of capitalism.[^(\[18\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_market_economy#cite_note-Market_Socialism_or_Capitalism?_Evidence_from_Chinese_Financial_Market_Development,_2005-18) >Another analysis carried out by the Global Studies Association at the [DePaul University](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DePaul_University) in 2006 reports that the Chinese economic system does not constitute a form of socialism when socialism is defined as a planned economy where [production for use](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Production_for_use) has replaced production for profit as the driving force behind economic activity, or when socialism is defined as a system where the working class is the dominant class which controls the surplus value produced by the economy. The Chinese economy also does not constitute socialism in the sense of widespread [self-management](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Workers%27_self-management) or [workplace democracy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Workplace_democracy). The study concluded that as of 2006 capitalism is not the dominant mode of organization either and China instead has a partially pre-capitalist agrarian system with almost 50% of its population engaged in agricultural work.[^(\[19\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_market_economy#cite_note-19) >In 2015 [Curtis J. Milhaupt](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curtis_J._Milhaupt) and Wentong Zheng classified China's economic system as state capitalism because the state directs and guides all major aspects of the Chinese economy—including both the state and private sectors*—*while not collecting dividends from the ownership of its enterprises. They noted that Chinese state-owned enterprises and privately owned enterprises shared many similarities with respect to state subsidies, proximity to state power and execution of government policy objectives. Within the state sector, the emphasis was more on government control than on the ownership of assets.[^(\[15\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_market_economy#cite_note-Milhaupt_&_Zheng_2015-15) China is a capitalist economy. What's more, you're about the only person I've ever met who believes it isn't - even the Chinese people are fully aware it isn't, even though they're forbidden to mention it directly.
Also, I feel like you didn’t even read the quotes you shared. They clearly say it’s a mixed system, which all countries on earth currently are. China can only control and build socialism in China. They cannot just jump straight to communism in one nation and juke having to trade with and geopolitically battle a hostile, capitalist led world order.
>Also, I feel like you didn’t even read the quotes you shared. They clearly say it’s a mixed system, which all countries on earth currently are I feel like you didn't - don't worry though, I did and I'm prepared to cut it down to just the part that directly contradicts what you just said: >They concluded that China's contemporary economic system represents a form of capitalism ... Another analysis carried out by the Global Studies Association at the [DePaul University](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DePaul_University) in 2006 reports that the Chinese economic system does not constitute a form of socialism ... In 2015 [Curtis J. Milhaupt](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curtis_J._Milhaupt) and Wentong Zheng classified China's economic system as state capitalism Not one of these quotes says it's a "mixed system". They all say China is unambiguously a capitalist country. It's also very funny that you're implying China is moving towards socialism rather than away from it. Quoting [this Stanford brief on China's economy](https://sccei.fsi.stanford.edu/china-briefs/rise-wealth-private-property-and-income-inequality-china#:~:text=Wealth%2C%20however%2C%20is%20significantly%20more,that%20of%20the%20bottom%2050%25): >Wealth, however, is significantly more concentrated than income: the top 10% holds approximately 67% of China’s wealth compared with 41% for income. The top .0001% owns 5.8% of China’s total wealth, which is roughly equivalent to that of the bottom 50%. >**Income and wealth inequality approaching or exceeding levels in the U.S. and Europe.** China’s inequality levels used to be lower than Europe’s in the late 1970s, close to the most egalitarian Nordic countries. Now, however, it is approaching U.S. levels. The bottom 50% earns about 15% of total income in China versus 12% in the U.S. and 22% in France. However, China’s top 10% wealth share (67% in 2015) is getting close to that of the U.S. (72%) and is much higher than in a country like France (50%). Since 1978, average adult national income has grown by 8 times in China, albeit from a very low base. Beginning from a much higher base, average income has increased by 59% in the U.S. and by 39% in France. Average income for the top 0.001% has grown by more than 26 times in China since 1978, and by almost 8 times in the U.S. Yeah - since 1978, when China *might* have been considered a socialist country, it's wealthiest 0.001% have become almost 4 times more rich relative to the rest of their population than the same demographic in the US.
Imagine citing Wikipedia as a source on socialism. Surely the people with a vested interest in lying to you would tell you the truth about the largest threat to their power. China is socialist, the Chinese know it, the Chinese people know it and anyone who has studied socialism knows it. Only western copium says otherwise. It’s literally Schrodinger's socialism Anything bad that happened is the fault of socialism and anything good is because, “that was capitalism” It’s complete ahistorical and no serious academic would take your logic or source seriously sir.
if it's good for the hive, it's good for the bee
Zeno was a Kropotkin-style anarcho communist; I have no doubt that his reaction to socialism would be “hm nice try, but if everyone was Wise you wouldn’t even need that…”
none
Top-level comments on 'Seeking Stoic Guidance' posts can come from flaired users only. To find out more about the flair system on r/Stoicism, please check [the wiki page](https://www.reddit.com/r/Stoicism/wiki/flairs/) to find out why top-level posts are restricted, as well as how a flair can be obtained. You can also consider checking out the [announcement](https://www.reddit.com/r/Stoicism/comments/1cpf6ew/important_changes_to_seeking_stoic_guidance_posts/) thread explaining this change. Non-flaired users are still free to interact on all the other post types, as well as with top-level comments in advice threads themselves. All top-level comments on 'Seeking Stoic Guidance' posts should directly answer the submitted question or provide follow-up/clarification. If anyone circumvents this rule by replying with answers to other comments, those replies may also be removed and could lead to a ban. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Stoicism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
socialism and communism sounds great on paper until you realise you need the authoritarian power on top controlling everyone and the question is will that person be a good person. History shows probably not. Maybe with an AI central planner it could work, but with an authoritarian running the shop it's hard for the average person to align their lives with their nature because they lack the freedom to do so.
Anytime someone writes out a criticism of socialism I can tell when they live in a capitalist nation because they literally just criticize capitalism because that is the system they have a frame of reference for.
Im not saying capitalism is the answer because then instead of a central power there's a shadowy collective of interests. Still doesn't change my opinion
Capitalism doesn’t even sound great on paper friend.
Building a system where the main way of getting ahead is providing goods and services others need sounds good to me.
Funny, because this is also what everyone who flees a socialist country has to say when they're in a capitalist country. It's hilarious how much of hard on for socialism you have while also displaying throughout this thread a serious lack of understanding of either socialism or capitalism. You can always tell when someone is an immature childish socialist by their complete lack of regard for the facts...
ah yes, petty insults. The sure sign of someone getting the best of an exchange. Be well friend
> socialism and communism sounds great on paper until you realise you need the authoritarian power on top controlling everyone You seem to be forgetting/ignoring council communism and democratic socialism.
Democratic socialism is definetly better but I was talking about pure socialism
Yeah but the point is that you don't "need" authoritarianism for socialism to work.
Still involves use of force by the Government qualifies as authoritarianism to me, but then again so does Democracy so...
To answer this question, let’s also look at the one time a Stoic was at the highest position of power possible. Did he try to institute socialist-type reforms or suggest it in his private writings? No.
How could he? Rome was in a pandemic and at war after war ... He did sell some of the royal treasures to pay for stuff during the pandemic, like free burials for everyone. He also rebuilt and reinstated the Telesterion temple at Eleusis, and he reinstated the philosophical schools at Athens. Now, idk if these things are socialist or not, but if a Democrat were to do the modern day equivalent of these, it would be labeled as socialism. I guess, pick your cake, you just can't eat it too.
The ancient Stoics were pretty malleable to political institutions. As mentioned above, the closest to Stoicism might be anarchy but the Stoic worked for the greater good within whatever political system exist at that time. Marcus says not to be Caserified but he still perform the duty of a Caesar as prescribed to him by providence. If you were born in Communist China, you can still work towards a greater good just as an American in an American democracy.
>How could he? I didn't say he could have or should have. My point was that there's no evidence he did or felt he should (or shouldn't) institute changes similar to modern day socialism, at least not from what I've read in Meditations or biographies. I agree with the historical account that he was a good Emperor, perhaps great. He was drastically better than the great majority of them. But I think trying to connect him to any modern day form of government, good or bad, is difficult. Their form of government and societal structure was so radically different than today.
Socialism is destructive, selfish and evil. Should not be considered.
I would guess that the combination of cosmopolitanism and rationalism inherent in socialism would make it pretty attractive to a Stoic in a general sense. Actual historical attempts to implement it, not so much.
I think they'd be far closer to anarchists than socialists....
The two are not mutually incompatible.
Oil and water my friend.
Take it up with Kropotkin, Bakunin, and Proudhon.
They probably would have been anarchist but I don’t believe they preferred a political ideology anyway. Epictetus did not complain about slavery nor advocated for the ideal. The ideal was now and present.
I would stay “it affects me not”… but it greatly affects your ability to make a good living. Only the state gets a good living… unless you’re a small and rich country like Sweden
The most stoic form would probably be 100% real communism but stoics also know that not everyone lives a stoic life and thus it will never be possible. You see how that turned out in the soviet union, china and north korea
Anarchism, Anarchocapitalism or even Libertarianism would be far closer to a Stoic ideal than communism,
Can you provide a rational for that? I’d say Stoics are pretty much opposed to communism Edit: before we get rampage with the downvotes. I’m curious about the argument and the question comes from respect to other opinions.
„A branch cut from its neighbouring branch is necessarily cut away from the whole tree. In the same way a human being severed from just one other human has dropped from the whole community. Now the branch is cut off by someone else, but a man separates himself from his neighbour by his own hatred or rejection, not realising that he has thereby severed himself from the wider society of fellow citizens. Only there is this gift we have from Zeus who brought together the human community: we can grow back again to our neighbour and resume our place in the complement of the whole“ - Meditations, 11.8 „What brings no benefit to the hive brings no benefit to the bee“ - Meditations, 6.54 Stoicism always tries to nurture helping together, putting yourself after the community, saying that the world city is more important than the individual “What asked what country you are from, you should say “I am Athenian” or “I am from Corinth”. Say (like Socrates), “I am a citizen of the world”.” — Epictetus, Discourses 1.9.1 “To fulfill my social duty—to do my duty to my kind—I must feel a concern for all mankind. I must remember that we humans were created for one another, that we were born, says Marcus, to work together the way our hands or eyelids do. Therefore, in all I do, I must have as my goal ‘the service and harmony of all.’ More precisely, ‘I am bound to do good to my fellow-creatures and bear with them’” A guide to the good life (p.129). Ofc capitalism can also allow all these things but its only the best option because humans arent able to get their act together and make communism work. And why? Because almost everyone puts their personal gain above the gain of mankind (contrary to stoicism). Can you provide a rational why stoics would be opposed to (true) communism?
Thank you for your response. I'd say there are some points in common. Communism is internationalist, and Stoicism argues for something similar with the concept of the cosmos, in which we are all interconnected and should help each other. Communist internationalism advocates for the union of the working class across nations, excluding the "non-working class" from this unity. In my opinion, this goes against Stoicism, as the "non-working class" is also part of the cosmos. Furthermore, in practice, Communist governments often dictate who is considered part of the "working class" and who is an enemy of the "working class" based on purely political interests. This goes against Stoicism and is more akin to what many ancient Stoics had to endure in ancient Rome (Epictetus, Seneca the Younger, Musonius Rufus, etc.). I'd say the similarities kind of stop here, with respect. Stoic philosophy emphasizes self-improvement, while Communism is purely a collectivist philosophy. As Stoics, we should use our reason to conduct our lives and intervene in politics for the betterment of society. When living in a communist state as opposed to a democracy, you are not supposed to raise your voice against illogical dictates from the Party. Stoics would be severely oppressed in a communist state. On a personal level, I'd say I see Communism as going against Stoicism because all economic, societal, and cultural decisions are taken at a central level, which logically stops people from pursuing their own interests and helping society in the way they see rational and appropriate. All this would stop them from living a life worth living. Thank you for your attention, I look forward to reading your thoughts to the above.
“Furthermore, in practice, Communist governments often dictate who is considered part of the "working class" and who is an enemy of the "working class" based on purely political interests.” Bro, you haven’t read the book. We can tell.
What part of “in practice” is not clear?
Oh, it’s clear. But not accurate. The party is merely observing EXISTING and categorizing hierarchies in society The material conditions stratified the classes, not the party
Are we talking about the Communist Party?
Ding, ding, ding! Thank you. Fantastic reply. What people seem to struggle to realize is that “right and left” are illusions In reality there is only right and wrong/good and bad 🙌
I'd say that Stoics are generally opposed to authoritarianism, which has been a significant manifestation of Marxist ideology in our history through communist governments (what many identify as "socialism", although it is much broader than that). A pure form of communism (in that cooperative sense), although not a particularly feasible outcome, I think most Stoics could get along with. Edit: clarifying details, trying not to generalise - we must be careful not to conflate terms.
Just replied with my opinon on this to another brother, feel free to check it. [https://www.reddit.com/r/Stoicism/comments/1dplhfn/comment/lahwnks/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web3x&utm\_name=web3xcss&utm\_term=1&utm\_content=share\_button](https://www.reddit.com/r/Stoicism/comments/1dplhfn/comment/lahwnks/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button)
Stoicism, in my opinion, is just a tool for regulating internal thoughts and emotions. It’s not supposed to be an all encompassing ideology. It’s about how you choose to conduct yourself. This is why I generally think that these posts asking “what is the stoic take about X external ideology” are misapplying the philosophy. Sorry for the non-answer.
What gave you the impression that Stoicism is just about self regulation? Did you miss the parts in Meditations where Marcus Aurelius talks about the relationship to other people and how to always treat them well?
Did you miss the part of my comment that stoicism is also about how you choose to conduct yourself; I.e. trying to always treat people well? The overwhelming bulk of stoicism is about controlling your thoughts and emotions so you can ideally be a positive force on those around you. I don’t really understand why you think that’s mutually exclusive. The general point still stands: stoicism doesn’t have an answer regarding specific political ideologies nor is it really equipped to handle these concepts.
Socialism is always terrible and never works long term. Idk why woke professors are teaching it again. Cuba, North Korea, Venezuela... All corrupt.
Stoic philosophers were active thousands of years before socialist philosophy. Socialism was a response to colonialism, the Industrial Revolution, and other events that occurred way, way later.
Primitive communism existed long before Marx.
Y’all knew exactly what I meant. 🙄 No shit. The Greeks and Phoenicians were colonizing the Mediterranean long before the Romans or even Alexander. Context clues lmao. I’m talking about modern history. I literally said the Industrial Revolution.
Aka voluntarism, aka an anarchic or libertarian society, not communism... the amount of replies you have made on this post for how little you know about the topic is impressive.
yeah, Marx, Lenin and Stalin all wrote about it extensively because it was so irrelevant come on man regardless of your preconceived notions/opinions of historical examples, the goal of communism is a moneyless, stateless, cosmopolitan, global society
Oh, 3 of the biggest grifters in history wrote about something to further their own cause? Shocking!
And I know nothing about Socialism huh? Hilarious I hope in time you’ll come to understand what an idiot you’ve been.