NationStates Jolt Archive

Capitalists often bring up 1984 and Fahrenheit 451 as attacks on Communism and the Left in general. Liberals and socialists respond that it is Social authoritarianism that is being attacked, not an economic policy.

Had a thought recently, would forceful government redistribution of wealth lead to other restrictions on personal freedom?

Capitalists (generally conservatives and libertarians) also bring up the former Soviet Union, China, North Korea, and Cuba as examples of communism leading to social authoritarianism. Liberals and socialists respond that those countries weren't actually communist, but some perverted mix of socialism and despotism. They point to various social democracies in Europe as examples that socialism itself does not lead to social authoritarianism.

But to imagine a government that has the power to determine what you spend and what you can earn...would that government also be powerful enough to determine what you can watch, what you can read, what you can think?

Just throwing out some thoughts, I'm still undecided on the matter. Most of us on NS agree that social authoritarianism is bad, but there is high support for economic authoritarianism.

I voted "somewhat." It all depends on the conditions in the country. I have always felt that if the people give up some liberties to the government, the government tries to take more. I say "somewhat" because it does not have to happen that way if another nation interfenes or the people stand up and prevent the grab for power.

I also feel that when socialists say that the countries were not really communists, that it is a copout.

Capitalists often bring up 1984 and Fahrenheit 451 as attacks on Communism and the Left in general. Liberals and socialists respond that it is Social authoritarianism that is being attacked, not an economic policy.

Had a thought recently, would forceful government redistribution of wealth lead to other restrictions on personal freedom?

Capitalists (generally conservatives and libertarians) also bring up the former Soviet Union, China, North Korea, and Cuba as examples of communism leading to social authoritarianism. Liberals and socialists respond that those countries weren't actually communist, but some perverted mix of socialism and despotism. They point to various social democracies in Europe as examples that socialism itself does not lead to social authoritarianism.

But to imagine a government that has the power to determine what you spend and what you can earn...would that government also be powerful enough to determine what you can watch, what you can read, what you can think?
I seriously doubt that at this point in our understanding of society, it's possible to separate the two.

One concept to keep in mind is that "the power to tax is the power to destroy." Any society with authoritarian tendencies, whether right or left, would be sorely tempted to utilize this economic power to enforce social objectives.

But to imagine a government that has the power to determine what you spend and what you can earn...would that government also be powerful enough to determine what you can watch, what you can read, what you can think?
.
They might have the power but they also have to be willing to do it. Economic and social authoritarianism don't go hand in hand. I don't think many people want any kind of authoritarian system but maybe a bit more regulated economics.

I live in socialist democracy and have to say, I believe it's the best way. Of course it's just my point of view but Scandianvian countries look good also in several studies (PISA, competitiveness, best country to live in etc)

I seriously doubt that at this point in our understanding of society, it's possible to separate the two.

One concept to keep in mind is that "the power to tax is the power to destroy." Any society with authoritarian tendencies, whether right or left, would be sorely tempted to utilize this economic power to enforce social objectives.
Yes, I've noticed that taxing can be used as a weapon. This has been done extensively against tobacco products. Ironically, something of a black market has now opened for cigerettes, people on the internet getting around the exorbitant taxes.

But in general, the government could theoretically tax anything it deems unacceptable out of existance. Instead of banning guns, there might simply be a "gun tax" that accomplishes the same goal.

Taxing in favor of funding beneficial government programs may be an admirable goal (or not), but taxing as a social weapon is a serious threat to freedom.

I believe that social restrictions covers economic restrictions. The government can control what we read and see through censorship, what we can do through force, and how we spend our money through taxes.

I'd say that the two are sperate in some ways. The Scandinavian countries are much more economically regulated than the US is, but socially, I'd have to say they're more free.

However, complete economic authoritarianism is probably not a good idea, because it's very likely to fall apart. Heavy economic regulation with immense social freedom is probably the best.

Without economic freedom, freedom of any other kind cannot exist except in a pinched and lifeless way. You can't restrict economic freedom without also restricting other expressions of freedom. Why? Because too many of the noneconomical choices we make every day are underwritten by economic choices.
Think Freedom of Speech. In a true Socialist government, I'd still have the freedom to stand on a streetcorner and shout whater I wanted to people passing by (save maybe fire). But the means to make the speech politically effective-- newspapers, radio, television-- are under the control of the government. Over time, political and social freedom invariably correspond to the degree of economic freedom people have retained.
Just one example among many. Economic freedom is indespensable becuase it makes a free society workable. Adam Smith described this process as the *Invisible Hand*. The Austrian school called it *Spontaneous Order*.
It's byproduct is is one of civilizations great inventions: Supply and Demand.
Prices yield 3 benefits with huge social ramifications:

1. Freely determined prices help insure that voluntary exchanges are also informed ones. Everyone knows a Honda and a Yugo have different price tags. even if you're ignorant of automobiles completely, the difference most often tells you a lot about their relative quality. The more the government interferes with prices, the less a consumer knows. This makes it harder for everyone to make informed, voluntary exchanges free of fraud.

2. Freely determined prices give us all a way to determine our own needs and prioriities. we are constantly incorporating the role of monetary costs into the larger decisions of our lives. Parents know this. They teach their children a skill I still have trouble with: Can I afford this? If I want this I will have to sacrifice something else Cash is a great teacher, but it's so intrinsic that we often forget that.

3. Freely determined prices encourage equality regardless of race, ethnicity, religion, or social status. This is the big one that people have a hard time understanding. I don't know why as it's so obvious, and it's the best perk to having an economically free society. Opposers ask questions like So you're saying it would be okay to open a NO BLACKS, JEWS, or GAYS bed and breakfast? Actually, I'd encourage it just to get this short lived economic experiment over and done with. Let's just say hillarity ensues...
Let them open their doors. Let them place whatever self-enforced restrictions they wish on their own establishment. Hell, they do own it.
Now I'd take my investment money and open another bed and breakfast right across the street. I'd put no self-enforced restrictions on my establishment.
In fact, our policy would be obverse: EVERYONE"S MONEY ACCEPTED HERE. COME IN PLEASE AND FEEL AT EASE!
I don't think you need a degree in economics to accurately guess which of us would be more prosperous. When cash is king, I'm not going to refuse anyone's dough. I'll be as accomodating as possible to the widest variety of consumer. Money is the great leveler.
Where the economy isn't free you will always find an elite class with exclusive access to certain goods. If you were a member of the Soviet Nomenklatura, you were allowed to shop in the special stores with good cuts of meat and designer jeans.
Access to certain goods and services wasn't based on whether you could pay the monetary price, but on your social status. If you were in, the law permitted you to confiscate and control in ways that were closed to commoners.
In a free economy, all you need is the money.
No groveling, no bloodlines, no connections are needed.
In a world where just about everything has it's price, the monetary price determined by free exchanges is the LEAST arbitrary, most accomodating to individual taste (very important to me since I think I haveat least a little style), and least subject to abuse.

Capitalists often bring up 1984 and Fahrenheit 451 as attacks on Communism and the Left in general. Liberals and socialists respond that it is Social authoritarianism that is being attacked, not an economic policy.

Had a thought recently, would forceful government redistribution of wealth lead to other restrictions on personal freedom?

Capitalists (generally conservatives and libertarians) also bring up the former Soviet Union, China, North Korea, and Cuba as examples of communism leading to social authoritarianism. Liberals and socialists respond that those countries weren't actually communist, but some perverted mix of socialism and despotism. They point to various social democracies in Europe as examples that socialism itself does not lead to social authoritarianism.

But to imagine a government that has the power to determine what you spend and what you can earn...would that government also be powerful enough to determine what you can watch, what you can read, what you can think?

Just throwing out some thoughts, I'm still undecided on the matter. Most of us on NS agree that social authoritarianism is bad, but there is high support for economic authoritarianism.
i would just like to point out an example of the reverse: social authoritarianism with little economic authoritarianism - Nazi Germany.

though whether this is because Hitler's policies were totalitarian or facist i dunno.

anyway im stumping for a no. you can have economic intervention & regulation by government without necessarily having social authoritarianism. One does not lead to the other simply because the government has the power to (by already being authoritarian on one or the other).

Sorry my last post was so long. It's aimed mostly at Chodoro whom I asked to stat this thread (his idea). I felt it deserved a better explaination here than a short quip.

if you say that socialism lead to social authoritarianism, I could say that capitalism lead to anarchy.
but in both of the places we could see that not always work like that. there is social democracies and capitalist democracies, and there is almost no connection between those economies and goverments.

Perhpas a better way to put this question would've been: Does economic freedom lead to greater social freedom?

I believe you can not compare the US and Europe and Sweden and North Korea and Cuba and the romans and the USSR.
In my opinion, taking one instance of something doesn't make a general rule.

I say: Other

Using 1984 as an arguement against Communism is a pretty weak piece of evidence. It critizised the USSR not Communism itself.

3. Freely determined prices encourage equality regardless of race, ethnicity, religion, or social status. This is the big one that people have a hard time understanding. I don't know why as it's so obvious, and it's the best perk to having an economically free society. Opposers ask questions like So you're saying it would be okay to open a NO BLACKS, JEWS, or GAYS bed and breakfast? Actually, I'd encourage it just to get this short lived economic experiment over and done with. Let's just say hillarity ensues...
Let them open their doors. Let them place whatever self-enforced restrictions they wish on their own establishment. Hell, they do own it.
Now I'd take my investment money and open another bed and breakfast right across the street. I'd put no self-enforced restrictions on my establishment.
In fact, our policy would be obverse: EVERYONE"S MONEY ACCEPTED HERE. COME IN PLEASE AND FEEL AT EASE!
I don't think you need a degree in economics to accurately guess which of us would be more prosperous. When cash is king, I'm not going to refuse anyone's dough. I'll be as accomodating as possible to the widest variety of consumer. Money is the great leveler.
Actually, this is only true in certain cases. If, for instance, someone had a "no convicts" policy, I think that a wide majority would rather stay in a place that doesn't allow convicts rather than a place that does. Also, the percentage of convicts is fairly small, so the cost would be easily absorbed. You could extend this argument further. A "no gays" policy would work well in a town where 95% are Evangelical Christians. A "no blacks" policy would work well in KKK headquarters. Etc.

Actually, this is only true in certain cases. If, for instance, someone had a "no convicts" policy, I think that a wide majority would rather stay in a place that doesn't allow convicts rather than a place that does. Also, the percentage of convicts is fairly small, so the cost would be easily absorbed. You could extend this argument further. A "no gays" policy would work well in a town where 95% are Evangelical Christians. A "no blacks" policy would work well in KKK headquarters. Etc.

That's a little limited in scope, but good point in question.
There are no laws barring any business from excluding gays or convicts where I live. Here in Florida, you can hire or fire as you please on these issues as well. Our state is at least 80% Christian. Towns outside of the city are almost exclusively white.
You don't see *No* policies anywhere however (save businesses often refuse positions to convicts).
So why aren't we an all-pervasive exclusive environment?
Becuase these policies don't just offend the minorities. They offend a lot of people not of those groups, but who wouldn't give a dime to anyone who'd resort to that kind of policy.
Again, the free market commands policies that help foster tolerance.

Just to clear something up, I'm not proposing that this is the perfect system. That system doesn't exist and never will.
I'm arguing for the best system available as I see it.
Dystopia's always start out as Utopian promises. I don't think anyone would argue that capitalism is perfect or utopian by any means. I'll leave promises like that to the socialists.
Just becuase you're free to purchase caviar, doesn't mean you can afford it. It doesn't mean you deserve it either. If you want it badly enough, you can always save for it.
But if the demand is there (yuck), the first to come up with a way to provide good caviar (sic) affordably to the masses not only makes society happier, he or she gets rich and earns satisfaction in the process. That wealth can be passed on to generations to come. Feeling a twinge of envy (the word wealth effects everyone but the wealthy that way)? Of course. That's exactly what kills Socialism given a long enough timeline. (Think Orwell's Animal Farm).
By failing to emphasize incentives, socialism is a theory inconsistent with human nature and is therefore doomed to fail. Socialism is based on the theory that incentives don't matter!
I realize that no matter what people say they believe, there is always an underlying reason. That reason is self-interest.
It is an evolving system with its own checks and balances.
Imperfect, but far better than any alternative I'm aware of.

That's a little limited in scope, but good point in question.
There are no laws barring any business from excluding gays or convicts where I live. Here in Florida, you can hire or fire as you please on these issues as well. Our state is at least 80% Christian. Towns outside of the city are almost exclusively white.
You don't see *No* policies anywhere however (save businesses often refuse positions to convicts).
So why aren't we an all-pervasive exclusive environment?
Becuase these policies don't just offend the minorities. They offend a lot of people not of those groups, but who wouldn't give a dime to anyone who'd resort to that kind of policy.
Again, the free market commands policies that help foster tolerance.

Sorry. I totally have to disagree with your statement. Businesses may not put up *no* signs regarding customers because that violates federal policy. However, what they can do and what actually happens is that businesses and workers will encourage policies of rudeness, less service, etc to minorities in an attempt to keep them out in order to keep the majority returning to the place of business, as opposed to fleeing to an establishment that doesn't 'cater' to the disliked minority. Unless a population is mixed enough that excluding a minority will hurt more than losing the business of the intolerent people -or unless tolerance is already exitant and the customers demand tolernance in the businesses they frequent, free market will *NOT* foster tolerance.

Without economic freedom, freedom of any other kind cannot exist except in a pinched and lifeless way. You can't restrict economic freedom without also restricting other expressions of freedom. Why? Because too many of the noneconomical choices we make every day are underwritten by economic choices.
Think Freedom of Speech. In a true Socialist government, I'd still have the freedom to stand on a streetcorner and shout whater I wanted to people passing by (save maybe fire). But the means to make the speech politically effective-- newspapers, radio, television-- are under the control of the government. Over time, political and social freedom invariably correspond to the degree of economic freedom people have retained.
Just one example among many. Economic freedom is indespensable becuase it makes a free society workable. Adam Smith described this process as the *Invisible Hand*. The Austrian school called it *Spontaneous Order*.
It's byproduct is is one of civilizations great inventions: Supply and Demand.
Prices yield 3 benefits with huge social ramifications:

1. Freely determined prices help insure that voluntary exchanges are also informed ones. Everyone knows a Honda and a Yugo have different price tags. even if you're ignorant of automobiles completely, the difference most often tells you a lot about their relative quality. The more the government interferes with prices, the less a consumer knows. This makes it harder for everyone to make informed, voluntary exchanges free of fraud.

2. Freely determined prices give us all a way to determine our own needs and prioriities. we are constantly incorporating the role of monetary costs into the larger decisions of our lives. Parents know this. They teach their children a skill I still have trouble with: Can I afford this? If I want this I will have to sacrifice something else Cash is a great teacher, but it's so intrinsic that we often forget that.

3. Freely determined prices encourage equality regardless of race, ethnicity, religion, or social status. This is the big one that people have a hard time understanding. I don't know why as it's so obvious, and it's the best perk to having an economically free society. Opposers ask questions like So you're saying it would be okay to open a NO BLACKS, JEWS, or GAYS bed and breakfast? Actually, I'd encourage it just to get this short lived economic experiment over and done with. Let's just say hillarity ensues...
Let them open their doors. Let them place whatever self-enforced restrictions they wish on their own establishment. Hell, they do own it.
Now I'd take my investment money and open another bed and breakfast right across the street. I'd put no self-enforced restrictions on my establishment.
In fact, our policy would be obverse: EVERYONE"S MONEY ACCEPTED HERE. COME IN PLEASE AND FEEL AT EASE!
I don't think you need a degree in economics to accurately guess which of us would be more prosperous. When cash is king, I'm not going to refuse anyone's dough. I'll be as accomodating as possible to the widest variety of consumer. Money is the great leveler.
Where the economy isn't free you will always find an elite class with exclusive access to certain goods. If you were a member of the Soviet Nomenklatura, you were allowed to shop in the special stores with good cuts of meat and designer jeans.
Access to certain goods and services wasn't based on whether you could pay the monetary price, but on your social status. If you were in, the law permitted you to confiscate and control in ways that were closed to commoners.
In a free economy, all you need is the money.
No groveling, no bloodlines, no connections are needed.
In a world where just about everything has it's price, the monetary price determined by free exchanges is the LEAST arbitrary, most accomodating to individual taste (very important to me since I think I haveat least a little style), and least subject to abuse.

Just to clear something up, I'm not proposing that this is the perfect system. That system doesn't exist and never will.
I'm arguing for the best system available as I see it.
Dystopia's always start out as Utopian promises. I don't think anyone would argue that capitalism is perfect or utopian by any means. I'll leave promises like that to the socialists.
Just becuase you're free to purchase caviar, doesn't mean you can afford it. It doesn't mean you deserve it either. If you want it badly enough, you can always save for it.
But if the demand is there (yuck), the first to come up with a way to provide good caviar (sic) affordably to the masses not only makes society happier, he or she gets rich and earns satisfaction in the process. That wealth can be passed on to generations to come. Feeling a twinge of envy (the word wealth effects everyone but the wealthy that way)? Of course. That's exactly what kills Socialism given a long enough timeline. (Think Orwell's Animal Farm).
By failing to emphasize incentives, socialism is a theory inconsistent with human nature and is therefore doomed to fail. Socialism is based on the theory that incentives don't matter!
I realize that no matter what people say they believe, there is always an underlying reason. That reason is self-interest.
It is an evolving system with its own checks and balances.
Imperfect, but far better than any alternative I'm aware of.
Those are very good arguments. Indeed, capitalism was the force that broke the power of mideival aristocracy, and created the middle class (as opposed to serfs and nobles). Capitalism has been responsible for rapid human progress and great accomplishments (even Karl Marx acknowledged this, though he felt that capitalism had by then outlived its usefulness).

All in all, my general feelings are that communism can only work in small groups, in which every member knows and respects every other member (for instance, a family, or a Boy Scout campout). But under larger conditions, greed and mistrust ruins it. But by acknowledging greed as a fact of humanity, it can be turned towards good. Basically, everyone working for their own self-interest manages to elevate the general wellbeing of everyone else, without any of them trying to do so. Of course, certain restrictions are put in place to defend capitalism against agressive and dangerous business practices and monopolies, but that is merely to preserve the good of capitalism.