NationStates Jolt Archive

Providing it truly helps people instead of simply making them dependent, and providing your country can afford it.

I was trying to put together a response, but nothing came, so...

I don't know.

I can argue both for it and against it.

Providing it truly helps people instead of simply making them dependent, and providing your country can afford it.

How does it make people dependent? Remember, in socialism people work because they want to, not because they have to. Remove the alienation of labor inherent in capitalism by moving to socialism, and you inherently motivate the work force by allowing them to keep the full measure of the product of their own labor. Your argument hinges on the idea that people are by nature egoistic. Marx would reply that people are only egoistic because the mode of production, and resulting effects on superstructure make them that way. Change the mode of production and remove the superstructure, and you no longer have egoism.

Unless by dependence you mean that one man will manufacture all of the goods necessary for his own survival. This is not the case, but everyone will collectively manufacture all the goods necessary for everyone's survival and well-being.

I read this the other day:


Socialism is evil

Walter E. Williams

July 28, 2004

What is socialism? We miss the boat if we say it's the agenda of left-wingers and Democrats. According to Marxist doctrine, socialism is a stage of society between capitalism and communism where private ownership and control over property are eliminated. The essence of socialism is the attenuation and ultimate abolition of private property rights. Attacks on private property include, but are not limited to, confiscating the rightful property of one person and giving it to another to whom it doesn't belong. When this is done privately, we call it theft. When it's done collectively, we use euphemisms: income transfers or redistribution. It's not just left-wingers and Democrats who call for and admire socialism but right-wingers and Republicans as well.

Republicans and right-wingers support taking the earnings of one American and giving them to farmers, banks, airlines and other failing businesses. Democrats and left-wingers support taking the earnings of one American and giving them to poor people, cities and artists. Both agree on taking one American's earnings to give to another; they simply differ on the recipients. This kind of congressional activity constitutes at least two-thirds of the federal budget.

Regardless of the purpose, such behavior is immoral. It's a reduced form of slavery. After all, what is the essence of slavery? It's the forceful use of one person to serve the purposes of another person. When Congress, through the tax code, takes the earnings of one person and turns around to give it to another person in the forms of prescription drugs, Social Security, food stamps, farm subsidies or airline bailouts, it is forcibly using one person to serve the purposes of another.

The moral question stands out in starker relief when we acknowledge that those spending programs coming out of Congress do not represent lawmakers reaching into their own pockets and sending out the money. Moreover, there's no tooth fairy or Santa Claus giving them the money. The fact that government has no resources of its very own forces us to acknowledge that the only way government can give one American a dollar is to first -- through intimidation, threats and coercion -- take that dollar from some other American.

Some might rejoin that all of this is a result of a democratic process and it's legal. Legality alone is no guide for a moral people. There are many things in this world that have been, or are, legal but clearly immoral. Slavery was legal. Did that make it moral? South Africa's apartheid, Nazi persecution of Jews, and Stalinist and Maoist purges were all legal, but did that make them moral?

Can a moral case be made for taking the rightful property of one American and giving it to another to whom it does not belong? I think not. That's why socialism is evil. It uses evil means (coercion) to achieve what are seen as good ends (helping people). We might also note that an act that is inherently evil does not become moral simply because there's a majority consensus.

An argument against legalized theft should not be construed as an argument against helping one's fellow man in need. Charity is a noble instinct; theft, legal or illegal, is despicable. Or, put another way: Reaching into one's own pocket to assist his fellow man is noble and worthy of praise. Reaching into another person's pocket to assist one's fellow man is despicable and worthy of condemnation.

For the Christians among us, socialism and the welfare state must be seen as sinful. When God gave Moses the commandment "Thou shalt not steal," I'm sure He didn't mean thou shalt not steal unless there's a majority vote. And I'm sure that if you asked God if it's OK just being a recipient of stolen property, He would deem that a sin as well.

Providing it truly helps people instead of simply making them dependent, and providing your country can afford it.

Well I don't think any of those things could really happen. But if they did, I would still say it is wrong.

Socialism basically forces the people to be equal. Socialists like to believe that the doctor and the janitor are equally important, but they are not. Socialism takes away from individual's rights and kills them. There are always people who are more intelligent, cunning, and inventive. They must be allowed to grow and prosper, but socialists are scared to be told someone is more successful than them.

I dont think it works. It destroys individual initiative and ambition, and encourages sloth. It penalises the successful and rewards the losers.

How does it make people dependent? Remember, in socialism people work because they want to, not because they have to.

They work because they want to, but that in and of itself means nothing. They are made dependent because the government handles so much of their life for them. If cradle to grave government programs paid for with high taxes doesn't make one dependent on the system then nothing will.

Remove the alienation of labor inherent in capitalism by moving to socialism, and you inherently motivate the work force by allowing them to keep the full measure of the product of their own labor.

Nice style, but no substance. Alienation of labor is not inherent to capitalism. Indeed, one of Marx's greatest errors was his inability to recognize the role the middle class plays in the capitalist system. The middle class bridge the gulf between the laborer and the capitalist. In fact everyone has the opportunity to be both a laborer and a capitalist. Most do, laboring during their productive years and investing so they can retire on their capital which generates an income from investments. Furthermore, socialism does not allow people to keep the full measure of the product of their own labor because it was never denied to them. The worth of someone's labor is the mutually agreed upon price set by employer and employee. Socialism actually disallows people to keep the full product of their labor because it taxes them excessively to run social programs.

Your argument hinges on the idea that people are by nature egoistic. Marx would reply that people are only egoistic because the mode of production, and resulting effects on superstructure make them that way. Change the mode of production and remove the superstructure, and you no longer have egoism.

Marx makes a lot of empty foolish claims that have yet to be proven or have been actively disproven. I would be interested to see an example of how Marx's system ever managed to change human nature. Marx has a system of making critical remarks about capitalism, "fixing" the problem with big government monopoly, and then patting us on the head like we're foolish children. Perhaps Marx couldn't run his life without the government holding his hand, but the rest of us manage just fine.

This is not the case, but everyone will collectively manufacture all the goods necessary for everyone's survival and well-being.

That sounds nice, its too bad that it never works that way. People are not connected enough to the vague abstraction of society. They don't see any tangible harm when they slack off in the entire nation's well being. People simply are not going to work hard for king and country like they will work for their own self interest. Marx realized this much; thats why he called for coerced labor.

There is a time and a place for everything. Just before I start, let me clarify that I am not a socialist, and while I lean heavily to the Right side of centralism, I am certainly not an economic Libertarian.

That article by Williams (who incidentally appears to be a Libertarian) understands some of the mechanisms of socialism, but does not recognize the point. He seems to assume that pure capitalism works just fine (he even criticizes the "right-wingers' and republican's minimal direct interference), but perhaps the closest humanity has come to a fully liberalized economy is the Industrial Revolution in England. Not quite the christian utopia he imagines.

Capitalism is fundamentally the economic principle of exploitation. It is designed to make sure that someone gets a better deal, hence makes a profit. For other examples of how capitalism isn't anywhere near perfect, take a look at those infamous sweatshops in South East Asia.

During periods of war, limited socialism has the potential to work. The normal problem of Socialism- a lack of direct incentive to streamline production, increase efficiency etc etc- is countered by the obvious fact that if a country cannot sustain it's means of producing weapons and so on, it will be overrun. Look at WW2 economic management of the economy by both the US and UK- it wasn't perfect by any means, but it certainly was good enough to produce enough to win.

Another period of economic success of limited socialism can be found during the 1st five year plan in Mao's China (1952-57). Government enforced- land reforms and re-distribution programmes meant that peasant 'collectives' managed to rapidly increase the agricultural sector's productivity compared to the more laissez-faire capitalist/landlord system that had been in place during the GMD's reign a few years before. Of course, then Mao showed how anything more than LIMITED socialism regarding the land can fail miserably- the "Great Leap Forward" from 1957-61 basically turned strong agricultural production and turned it into a basketcase.

Some socialism can be a good thing, for example the well-funded education system run by the GMD government on Taiwan can work very well, and complimented the more free market elements of its economy (for those that are unaware, Taiwan's incredible economic success as a result of these programmes can be measured by it's growth from a backwater province with a tiny agronomy, to the second strongest economy in 15 years. To this day it remains a formidible "Tiger Economy", and was able to more or less weather even the Asian Economic Crash of '98). But of course, it has it's faults, like everything else. Just look at eastern europe to see how bad it can be when inappropriately applied or improperly implemented.

How does it make people dependent? Remember, in socialism people work because they want to, not because they have to. Remove the alienation of labor inherent in capitalism by moving to socialism, and you inherently motivate the work force by allowing them to keep the full measure of the product of their own labor. Your argument hinges on the idea that people are by nature egoistic. Marx would reply that people are only egoistic because the mode of production, and resulting effects on superstructure make them that way. Change the mode of production and remove the superstructure, and you no longer have egoism.

Unless by dependence you mean that one man will manufacture all of the goods necessary for his own survival. This is not the case, but everyone will collectively manufacture all the goods necessary for everyone's survival and well-being.

The biggest problem with socialism is that everyone provides for everyone else. Some would argue that that is compassionate. I disagree. If this were the system, what is the incentive to work if someone else is going to provide for you? Socialism promotes dependence on the Welfare State which puts more strain on those who do want to work.

Also, those in power in socialist countries can retain their power by having more people dependent on the state. The more people are dependent on them, the more they will turn to them for help with their every need. It should be obvious that there is a conflict of interest because of that fact that those leaders in socialist countries gain their power by the number of people who "need" them. Capitalism goes on the fact that anyone can achieve anything if they work hard. Are there exceptions to both cases on an individual level? Of course. But this does not mean socialism "helps" people in the long run. It only teaches them that if they have problems, turn to the gov't for help instead of themselves.

Well I don't think any of those things could really happen. But if they did, I would still say it is wrong.

Socialism basically forces the people to be equal. Socialists like to believe that the doctor and the janitor are equally important, but they are not. Socialism takes away from individual's rights and kills them. There are always people who are more intelligent, cunning, and inventive. They must be allowed to grow and prosper, but socialists are scared to be told someone is more successful than them.
Well, one person is more "successful" than another only if one person's contributions are considered more important than another’s. However, both the doctor and the janitor are necessary. After all, if a surgeon doesn't have a clean place to operate, his patient will get an infection and die. Your statement that people must be allowed to grow and prosper, which you intend as a criticism of socialism, assumes that "growing and prospering" requires more money. Why is that? Do people only get satisfaction from money? That's a rather shallow lifestyle, isn't it? If you succeed in doing a good job, do you really depend on the bottom line to give you "growth"? If you do, I guess socialism isn't a good fit for you. It's not a good fit for people who define themselves through their wealth. If you prefer defining yourself through your contribution, and take satisfaction from that rather than what your bank account looks like, maybe you like this "Socialism" idea, because no-one gets the short end of the stick because his job is considered inferior to others. You say that socialism forces people to be equal, and I agree. However, capitalism forces people to be inequal. Status is socially constructed, so use of the term "Forces" is accurate, but distorts the truth a bit.

On a side-note, I think I have misjudged Eutrusca. Had him figured for closed-minded Republican (not that there’s anything wrong with Republicans, just the closed-minded types regardless of political affiliation). Apologies his way.

I see good (and necessity) in both capitalism AND socialism.

In that respect I can be considered a welfare liberal.

Or you can call me a moderate.

I just acknowledge that pure unbridled capitalism is just as harmful as total socialism.

He seems to assume that pure capitalism works just fine (he even criticizes the "right-wingers' and republican's minimal direct interference), but perhaps the closest humanity has come to a fully liberalized economy is the Industrial Revolution in England. Not quite the christian utopia he imagines.

The problems of that era were not created by capitalism, they were eventually ended by the increased prosperity that capitalism brings about.

Capitalism is fundamentally the economic principle of exploitation.

It is impossible for me to say with mere words how wrong this is. Capitalism is the antithesis of exploitation. Capitalism is the only economic system wholly devoted to the total and utter lack of exploitation. Capitalism is about mutual agreement and non-coercion. Capitalism is about free people going about their own self interest freely, without infringing on anyone elses freedom. Socialism and other related systems are about the government coercing you to give up a portion of your property to do whatever charity work the government decides needs to be done. The contrast is stark; freedom in capitalism or coercion in socialism.


It is designed to make sure that someone gets a better deal, hence makes a profit. For other examples of how capitalism isn't anywhere near perfect, take a look at those infamous sweatshops in South East Asia.

Correction, its designed to make sure that everyone gets a better deal. The worker tries to get as much wage as possible for his labor, the loaner tries to get as much interest as possible, the borrower tries to make as much return as possible, etc. Sweatshops are good in developing economies because those are the only things that said economies will support. You have to crawl before you can walk; every first world nation started with sweatshops. Sweatshops, in a free market, begin the influx of capital needed to build the education and infrastructional base of a modern economy. That money won't be available any other way except through coercion and coerced money is usually squandered by the power which coerced it.

During periods of war, limited socialism has the potential to work...it wasn't perfect by any means, but it certainly was good enough to produce enough to win.

War is a special circumstance. I would be willing to endure 100% taxes and 80 hour work weeks if I thought that was the price of sustaining my liberty. Would I ever work under those conditions normally? Never.

Another period of economic success of limited socialism can be found during the 1st five year plan in Mao's China (1952-57)....laissez-faire capitalist/landlord system that had been in place during the GMD's reign a few years before. Of course, then Mao showed how anything more than LIMITED socialism regarding the land can fail miserably- the "Great Leap Forward" from 1957-61 basically turned strong agricultural production and turned it into a basketcase.[/quote]

What stuns me, other than you calling pre-1952 china laissez-faire, is that you think the five year plan was a good thing. As I recall following the five year plan from 1958 to 1962 about 30 million people starved to death. Not surprising since it was based off the Soviet system which also starved millions to death. Of course you try to take it all back by saying that Mao went "too far." It amazes me how someone can think that a little bit of a bad idea is good.

Some socialism can be a good thing, for example the well-funded education system...

No matter how bad something is, if you fund it well enough you can probably coax a satisfactory rating out of it. After all, the Soviets did a fairly good job with such things despite their wreck of an economy. The true test is setting government provided services side by side with their private sector equilivant.

Socialism is evil

Walter E. Williams

July 28, 2004

What is socialism? We miss the boat if we say it's the agenda of left-wingers and Democrats. According to Marxist doctrine, socialism is a stage of society between capitalism and communism where private ownership and control over property are eliminated. The essence of socialism is the attenuation and ultimate abolition of private property rights. Attacks on private property include, but are not limited to, confiscating the rightful property of one person and giving it to another to whom it doesn't belong. When this is done privately, we call it theft. When it's done collectively, we use euphemisms: income transfers or redistribution. It's not just left-wingers and Democrats who call for and admire socialism but right-wingers and Republicans as well.

Republicans and right-wingers support taking the earnings of one American and giving them to farmers, banks, airlines and other failing businesses. Democrats and left-wingers support taking the earnings of one American and giving them to poor people, cities and artists. Both agree on taking one American's earnings to give to another; they simply differ on the recipients. This kind of congressional activity constitutes at least two-thirds of the federal budget.

Regardless of the purpose, such behavior is immoral. It's a reduced form of slavery. After all, what is the essence of slavery? It's the forceful use of one person to serve the purposes of another person. When Congress, through the tax code, takes the earnings of one person and turns around to give it to another person in the forms of prescription drugs, Social Security, food stamps, farm subsidies or airline bailouts, it is forcibly using one person to serve the purposes of another.

The moral question stands out in starker relief when we acknowledge that those spending programs coming out of Congress do not represent lawmakers reaching into their own pockets and sending out the money. Moreover, there's no tooth fairy or Santa Claus giving them the money. The fact that government has no resources of its very own forces us to acknowledge that the only way government can give one American a dollar is to first -- through intimidation, threats and coercion -- take that dollar from some other American.

Some might rejoin that all of this is a result of a democratic process and it's legal. Legality alone is no guide for a moral people. There are many things in this world that have been, or are, legal but clearly immoral. Slavery was legal. Did that make it moral? South Africa's apartheid, Nazi persecution of Jews, and Stalinist and Maoist purges were all legal, but did that make them moral?

Can a moral case be made for taking the rightful property of one American and giving it to another to whom it does not belong? I think not. That's why socialism is evil. It uses evil means (coercion) to achieve what are seen as good ends (helping people). We might also note that an act that is inherently evil does not become moral simply because there's a majority consensus.

An argument against legalized theft should not be construed as an argument against helping one's fellow man in need. Charity is a noble instinct; theft, legal or illegal, is despicable. Or, put another way: Reaching into one's own pocket to assist his fellow man is noble and worthy of praise. Reaching into another person's pocket to assist one's fellow man is despicable and worthy of condemnation.

For the Christians among us, socialism and the welfare state must be seen as sinful. When God gave Moses the commandment "Thou shalt not steal," I'm sure He didn't mean thou shalt not steal unless there's a majority vote. And I'm sure that if you asked God if it's OK just being a recipient of stolen property, He would deem that a sin as well.

Ah yes, this article. Read it in about September, and I found it absolutely hilarious in exactly how little this "Professor of Economics" actually knew. I'm not sure which is worse, his grasp of theology, ethics, or economics. Allow me to elucidate:


What is socialism? We miss the boat if we say it's the agenda of left-wingers and Democrats. According to Marxist doctrine, socialism is a stage of society between capitalism and communism where private ownership and control over property are eliminated. The essence of socialism is the attenuation and ultimate abolition of private property rights. Attacks on private property include, but are not limited to, confiscating the rightful property of one person and giving it to another to whom it doesn't belong. When this is done privately, we call it theft. When it's done collectively, we use euphemisms: income transfers or redistribution. It's not just left-wingers and Democrats who call for and admire socialism but right-wingers and Republicans as well.

1) Close, but no cigar with respect to the goal of Marxism. The goal is not "attenuation and ultimate abolition of private property rights." It is to remove the means of production forcibly from the bourgeousie and placing it in the hands of the proletariat generally. So you could say in a very narrow sense that yes, private property rights will be abolished. But the implication, that this is somehow unethical, doesn't follow, because the idea behind socialism is that the factories will churn out anything you need, so long as you are willing to work within the system. So there is no loss to anyone but the people who were living off the backs of the working class in the first place. That doesn't sound so bad.

2) Theft is not the simple "confiscating the rightful property of one person and giving it to another to whom it doesn't belong." Why? Because the intent is also important in defining theft. A thief is marked not so much to the extent that he fulfills that definition as he is by his intent to do so purely for his own self-interest. Someone who tries and fails to "confiscates the rightful property of one person and gives it to another to whom it doesn't belong" is far more a thief than one who actually succeeds, but does so for altruistic motives.

Ah, but wait, what motivation does the government operate from? That's right, one of altruism. They take some of your property in the form of taxation, and then they pour it right back into your well-being in the form of services, such as roads and medical services. So until the day comes when thieves roam the streets stealing Rolexes so they can pawn it off for money to vaccinate your child for tetanus, the government is not, and cannot be considered a thief, because it's motives are not those of one.

Regardless of the purpose, such behavior is immoral. It's a reduced form of slavery. After all, what is the essence of slavery? It's the forceful use of one person to serve the purposes of another person. When Congress, through the tax code, takes the earnings of one person and turns around to give it to another person in the forms of prescription drugs, Social Security, food stamps, farm subsidies or airline bailouts, it is forcibly using one person to serve the purposes of another.

I see. So the essence of slavery is "forceful use of one person to serve the purposes of another person." Well, I guess I agree that such a definition qualifies as an immoral action, but the question is does it follow that socialism fits this description?

The answer is no, surprisingly enough. The whole point of Marx's system was to construct an economy based on you, and you alone, gaining the full, unfettered benefit of the product of your labor. In socialism, when you need a t-shirt, you go to the t-shirt factory and you make yourself one. Alternatively, to borrow from Alex Calinicos, you work at your own factory, but you barter the goods you make at your factory for the t-shirt you need from someone else's factory. In neither case is it true that you are somehow forcing anyone else, or conversely being forced by anyone else, to serve the purposes of another forcibly.

However, there is, ironically enough, a system that does operate on this principle. We call it capitalism. You see, when you work in a capitalist society, what happens is that some of the time, you are working for your own profit. Some of the other time, however, you are working for your boss' profit. If you don't make enough profit for the boss, you get fired, and if you get fired, you don't get money, and if you don't get money, you can't eat. If you face the risk of not eating, then the boss has just as well as put a knife to your throat and demanded your continued working, because in both cases, death results from the wrong choice. So in effect, his argument backfires.

Some might rejoin that all of this is a result of a democratic process and it's legal. Legality alone is no guide for a moral people. There are many things in this world that have been, or are, legal but clearly immoral. Slavery was legal. Did that make it moral? South Africa's apartheid, Nazi persecution of Jews, and Stalinist and Maoist purges were all legal, but did that make them moral?

No, I rejoin that any legitemate society operates under the assumption of altruism; it presupposes that its inflow must be matched by services in outflow to the same people who paid the taxes. When it doesn't do this, it loses its legitemacy, and people can and do revolt and return to the state of nature. Legality has nothing to do with it.

That being said, it should be noted that it's not always going to be a one-for-one, tit-for-tat relationship between tax dollars and services, but that is still okay. Why? Because civil society is on the whole better than the state of nature, and it's easier for you to protect what you have in a civil society than in the state of nature. You may not get every dollar you pay into the system back out, but generally speaking, it's still a vast net profit over a society where you have to defend your own property and people potentially have little or no conception of the concept of "yours".

Apparently this guy has never read the 2nd Treatise on Government. Something tells me before he tries writing a defense of capitalism again, he should.


For the Christians among us, socialism and the welfare state must be seen as sinful. When God gave Moses the commandment "Thou shalt not steal," I'm sure He didn't mean thou shalt not steal unless there's a majority vote. And I'm sure that if you asked God if it's OK just being a recipient of stolen property, He would deem that a sin as well.

Oy vey. Where to begin.

1) Why in the hell does he defend Christian morals by referring to Exodus, part of the Jewish Torah? Oh, that's right, because if he referred to the New Covenant part of the document, he'd have to contend with quotations like "You cannot serve both God and Mammon.", "It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter heaven.", and "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs."

2) Where does he keep getting this majority vote from? The basis is not whether or not someone took a vote on it, it's whether or not the system of government is legitemate, and the system is legitemate if and only if it serves the collective interest of the people. If the collective interest is in a network of highways, and the only way to pay for it is taxation (which is pretty true, as I'd love to see how libertarians plan to organize a highway project in which each person pays only for the paving that connects his house with the road), then you tax and you build the road. This isn't theft, it's payment for services rendered, and a pretty cut rate price for it too, if I do say so myself.

3) . . .And this is why, children, that early Christians formed industrial capitalist societies built on the premise of every man for himself. What's that, little Timmy? They built primitive communist societies? Who has the economics degree here, you or me?

How does it make people dependent? Remember, in socialism people work because they want to, not because they have to. Remove the alienation of labor inherent in capitalism by moving to socialism, and you inherently motivate the work force by allowing them to keep the full measure of the product of their own labor. Your argument hinges on the idea that people are by nature egoistic. Marx would reply that people are only egoistic because the mode of production, and resulting effects on superstructure make them that way. Change the mode of production and remove the superstructure, and you no longer have egoism.

Unless by dependence you mean that one man will manufacture all of the goods necessary for his own survival. This is not the case, but everyone will collectively manufacture all the goods necessary for everyone's survival and well-being.
I wasn't talking about Marxist socialism. I definitely don't think that's a workable theory. I was speaking more of socalism along the lines of Sweden.

The biggest problem with socialism is that it has to involve people. It's a fatal flaw. *nod*

I wasn't talking about Marxist socialism. I definitely don't think that's a workable theory. I was speaking more of socalism along the lines of Sweden.

Well, for one, I'm not sure how much of a workable theory it is myself (I definitely have a much more robust conception of human nature than does Marx).

But Socialism in Sweden differs from Marxist thought only in the sense that they assume they can legislate the means of production into the hands of the proletariat, whereas classical Marxists insisted that you have to forcibly do it through revolution if you want to all the way to communism, rather than stop somewhere along the path. The rest of their platform is pretty much straight out of the Communist Manifesto.

The biggest problem with socialism is that it has to involve people. It's a fatal flaw. *nod*
LOL! If I understand this correctly, you're referring to the tendency among humans of being greedy, acquisitive, selfish, etc. Yes?

LOL! If I understand this correctly, you're referring to the tendency among humans of being greedy, acquisitive, selfish, etc. Yes?

Well, yes. But more generally, human beings have a near-divine knack for screwing good ideas up.

But Socialism in Sweden differs from Marxist thought only in the sense that they assume they can legislate the means of production into the hands of the proletariat.... The rest of their platform is pretty much straight out of the Communist Manifesto.
Can you please say more about this? I had a different understanding of Swedish socialism.

Okay, I have an issue. Those opposed to socialism keep on going on about the government. Now, here's the thing: I'm holding a copy of Karl Marx's Capital in my right hand. If anyone can tell me where to find the word "government" in here I would really appreciate it, because I can't locate it. However, I am aware of a passage in here (which I can’t seem to find… oh well) that refers to a free association of workers, and suggests that only through such an association can the true value of labour be revealed. Hardly “Coercive”.

Well, one person is more "successful" than another only if one person's contributions are considered more important than another’s. However, both the doctor and the janitor are necessary. After all, if a surgeon doesn't have a clean place to operate, his patient will get an infection and die.

Certainly, both are important. However anyone can do the job of a janitor without much work. Anyone can become a doctor as well, but to become a doctor it takes years and years of studying, work, and extreme determination. Not everyone is willing to put in all that work to become a doctor. Thus, some people are likely to be turned away from being a doctor if their hard work doesn't pay off or they aren't given respect or recognition for their position.

Your statement that people must be allowed to grow and prosper, which you intend as a criticism of socialism, assumes that "growing and prospering" requires more money. Why is that? Do people only get satisfaction from money? That's a rather shallow lifestyle, isn't it?

Perhaps it is shallow, but it is also realistic. Money isn't the only factor in "growing and prospering", but it is a major one. People are going to be less motivated to invent and discover if they don't see a gain for them. What constitutes a gain depends on the individual of course. Monetary gain is the primary one, whether it seems shallow or not.

If you succeed in doing a good job, do you really depend on the bottom line to give you "growth"? If you do, I guess socialism isn't a good fit for you. It's not a good fit for people who define themselves through their wealth. If you prefer defining yourself through your contribution, and take satisfaction from that rather than what your bank account looks like, maybe you like this "Socialism" idea, because no-one gets the short end of the stick because his job is considered inferior to others.

If people want to define themselves through their contribution, then they will do so. But they cannot when the government forces them to. Instead of giving out freely of their own will, their money is stolen and donated "for them". Forced charity makes about as much sense as mandatory volunteer service.

You say that socialism forces people to be equal, and I agree. However, capitalism forces people to be inequal. Status is socially constructed, so use of the term "Forces" is accurate, but distorts the truth a bit.

Capitalism doesn't force people to be anything. It allows anyone to prosper who has the determination and ingenuity to do so. After that, it is up to the individual what to do with their profits, whether that be to use it for themselves or for others. In socialism, there is no choice.

Okay, I have an issue. Those opposed to socialism keep on going on about the government. Now, here's the thing: I'm holding a copy of Karl Marx's Capital in my right hand. If anyone can tell me where to find the word "government" in here I would really appreciate it, because I can't locate it. However, I am aware of a passage in here (which I can’t seem to find… oh well) that refers to a free association of workers, and suggests that only through such an association can the true value of labour be revealed. Hardly “Coercive”.
Maxism is now little more than a quait anacronism which has failed every attempt to institute it. Besides, you're forgetting that "phase" which involves "the dictatorship of the proletariat."

Sweden is referred to as a social democratic state...I'm doing a bit of googling now...

Can you please say more about this? I had a different understanding of Swedish socialism.

As I understand it, Sweden follows the model laid out by Democratic Socialists like. . .tum te tum, what's his name. . .ah yes, Millerand (sp?). Basically, in classical Marxism, Marx thought that the only way you could get the means of production into the hands of the proletariat and out of the hands of the bourgeoisie was to take it by force. Millerand, on the other hand, thought that you could use democratic institutions to progressively legislate socialism into existence.

The criticism of this of course from classical Marxists, like Rosa Luxembourg, was that if you tried to legislate it into existence, at some point people would look at their lot and say "You know, we have it pretty good as is, and this 'communism' takes a lot of extra work. Let's keep what we have right now." Thus, the Democratic Socialists would lose their mandate, and gradually capitalism would regain a foothold. So their only real solution was to just get it over in one bloody moment.

An example of this is in the American experiment with socialism. In the 30's, Americans instituted quite a number of socialist programs under a fairly democratic socialist program. Things improved. But because of bumps along the way (as well as the fact that I don't think anyone ever intended the U.S. to completely convert to communism, except maybe just in Pat Buchanan's wet dreams), people stopped advocating pro-socialist policies. As a result, corporate America made a comeback, and now you have the return of the middle class living paycheck to paycheck. I've talked with several real-deal red communists, and they always say that the man who did the most to stop global communism wasn't Reagan, it was FDR by instituting the New Deal; he helped the situation enough so that people weren't willing to revolt and go for the whole shebang, and because America remained capitalist, so to did the global economy.

Maxism is now little more than a quait anacronism which has failed every attempt to institute it. Besides, you're forgetting that "phase" which involves "the dictatorship of the proletariat."

You seem to misunderstand what the dictatorship of the proletariat means. It doesn't mean that someone will assume dictatorial powers over the proletariat, but that the proletariat will assume power over itself. In that sense, yes, it's a dictatorship, because the proletariat has absolute control. However, it's about as far as you can get from a dictatorship in the classical sense of the term. If you want a reference to what Marx means when he says this, a better reference might be Rousseau's On The Social Contract.

Damn, that piece by Mr. Williams pretty much sums it up for me.

Down with socialism, long live anarcho-socialism.

If people want to define themselves through their contribution, then they will do so. But they cannot when the government forces them to. Instead of giving out freely of their own will, their money is stolen and donated "for them". Forced charity makes about as much sense as mandatory volunteer service.



Capitalism doesn't force people to be anything. It allows anyone to prosper who has the determination and ingenuity to do so. After that, it is up to the individual what to do with their profits, whether that be to use it for themselves or for others. In socialism, there is no choice.
Again with the being forced by the government. Anyway, in socialism, you are free to do the job you want to do, you just aren't paid a whole lot more if you do certain jobs. Now, I think that people who work harder should make more, but not that much more. Anyway, the government isn't literally going to pick someone and say: You're a janitor, you're a doctor.
With Capitalism, no, you aren't forced to be one thing or another, but the whole society forces you to either be in the "Better" job or the "worse" job, and you determine to a certain extent which job you have. The force is not direct but hegemonic. It shapes how people within a society think, and what is common sense. The idea that one individual is more important, and deserves more money than another is not innate, I argue, but rather that it is conditioned into us within our society. That's what I mean by "force". I don't mean to say that this force is either good or bad.

I wasn't talking about Marxist socialism. I definitely don't think that's a workable theory. I was speaking more of socalism along the lines of Sweden.

Well, I'd say Swedish Democratic Socialism/Social Democracy is a very good system, definitely workable, considering that the Swedes have the highest standard of living in the world. Very small rich vs. poor gap, very well funded government institutions, great place.

However anyone can do the job of a janitor without much work. Anyone can become a doctor as well, but to become a doctor it takes years and years of studying, work, and extreme determination. Not everyone is willing to put in all that work to become a doctor. Thus, some people are likely to be turned away from being a doctor if their hard work doesn't pay off or they aren't given respect or recognition for their position.
Then the only people who would be doctors are the people who want to be doctors because they enjoy being doctors.

Then the only people who would be doctors are the people who want to be doctors because they enjoy being doctors.
Or people who want to help people by being doctors. Plus side: socialism usually brings with it easier access to schools, so more people have the option of being doctors, lawyers, whatever.

Or people who want to help people by being doctors. Plus side: socialism usually brings with it easier access to schools, so more people have the option of being doctors, lawyers, whatever.
Exactly. Doctors Without Borders comes to mind.

Exactly. Doctors Without Borders comes to mind.
Do they have trouble finding doctors?

Again with the being forced by the government. Anyway, in socialism, you are free to do the job you want to do, you just aren't paid a whole lot more if you do certain jobs. Now, I think that people who work harder should make more, but not that much more. Anyway, the government isn't literally going to pick someone and say: You're a janitor, you're a doctor.

I didn't mean that socialism chose their jobs for them, they are free to choose their job, of course. However, they are not free to do with the money they gain from that job to do with what they wish. Now, I know you seem to not like the word force, but when you have to pay taxes, that may or may not be used how you would like, or face the threat of imprisonment or the like, I don't know what other kind of word to use. Of course, I don't know how this goes in other countries.

With Capitalism, no, you aren't forced to be one thing or another, but the whole society forces you to either be in the "Better" job or the "worse" job, and you determine to a certain extent which job you have.

A person can choose to be a lazy slob in a capitalist setting, but they can't expect the workers of the society to foot the bill for their laziness.

The force is not direct but hegemonic. It shapes how people within a society think, and what is common sense. The idea that one individual is more important, and deserves more money than another is not innate, I argue, but rather that it is conditioned into us within our society. That's what I mean by "force". I don't mean to say that this force is either good or bad.

What I mean by "force" is that you have to pay taxes, that may or may not be used in a way you like, or else you face the threat of imprisonment or some other punishment. Of course, I don't know how that works in other countries.

War is a special circumstance. I would be willing to endure 100% taxes and 80 hour work weeks if I thought that was the price of sustaining my liberty. Would I ever work under those conditions normally? Never.

Yep. I wouldn't expect you to. Bottom line is though, there is a time and a place.

What stuns me, other than you calling pre-1952 china laissez-faire, is that you think the five year plan was a good thing. As I recall following the five year plan from 1958 to 1962 about 30 million people starved to death. Not surprising since it was based off the Soviet system which also starved millions to death. Of course you try to take it all back by saying that Mao went "too far." It amazes me how someone can think that a little bit of a bad idea is good.

Wrong five year plan, 57-61 was the second, far more heavily socialist than the previous one and agreed, it was an unmitigated disaster. Sorry, I should have clarified- China was capitalist (not unrestricted admittedly, but still well and truly capitalist compared to everything else).

industry achievements of the 1st 5year plan. (total yearly outputs)
Cotton- 195.05 million tons (up from 113.25 in '49 and 150 in '36)
Grain- 1.6 million tons (up from .8 and .4)

Thus: we can see that the more socialist approach (it wasn't pure socialism by any means, just land reform and a sort of collectivised/sort of not farming technique) can indeed increase productivity. Helped them recover from the civil war quite a bit. Pity Mao went stupid and tried to piss it all away.

No matter how bad something is, if you fund it well enough you can probably coax a satisfactory rating out of it. After all, the Soviets did a fairly good job with such things despite their wreck of an economy. The true test is setting government provided services side by side with their private sector equilivant.

Interestingly, I note with interest that the system in my state (in Australia) despite a massive disparity between the state and private educations respective funding levels, state students are actually quite close (result-wise to us). Kinda pisses me off, considering I just went to a private education. Personally I would advocate a state-education system, with funding to the private sector (people can pay after that whatever they want, I'm not about to penalize people for spending more on their childrens education)

The rest of your post is basically about your different view of libertarian-Capitalism, which I really can't be bothered replying to, as I think others dealt with it, or it can be dealt with in another thread when i'm not so busy.

I didn't mean that socialism chose their jobs for them, they are free to choose their job, of course. However, they are not free to do with the money they gain from that job to do with what they wish. Now, I know you seem to not like the word force, but when you have to pay taxes, that may or may not be used how you would like, or face the threat of imprisonment or the like, I don't know what other kind of word to use. Of course, I don't know how this goes in other countries.
Abolishing money solves this problem.

The beauty of Socialism in the context of Western Democracies is that if ultimately, the people don't like the results, they can elect a different party, with a different political outlook, to represent them instead.

Hey, if my province of Ontari-ari-ari-o can elect a Socialist government, as it did in the mid-90s, anyone can. So, they didn't last to a second term. Big deal. At least we had a choice, and even if a majority of voters said 'no thanks' to seconds, there was the opportunity to see what a Socialist Ontario would be like. Personally, I didn't have a problem with it...but I knew many who did. Well, the shoe was on the other foot for a few years, in that case!