NationStates Jolt Archive

This is a query into the theoretical consequences of adhering to one economic/political way of governing as opposed to the other. I have oftentimes heard fellows lamenting socialism, making a number of arguments against it - this includes matters of freedom, property and economic growth. I have also heard socialists lament the capitalistic - or classic Liberal - way of dealing with governance, including its seeming disregard for the welfare of its citizenry and it's promotion of corruption and disenfranchisement. What I'm asking is, which is preferable? What are the pros and cons of each, and why should one be chosen over the other? What compromises are reasonable?

This question arose when I was reading some historical texts that helped place the context of the Communist Manifesto. In it, Frederic L. Bender writes:

Socialists insisted that society, insofar as it molds individuals, has the moral responsibility for the welfare and development of all its members and, in some cases, that the state must actively promote these. On the other hand, the liberal view was that individuals are not molded socially and that society need offer them only the opportunity to rise or fall to the level appropriate to their abilities and efforts. Thus, the sole legitimate function of the state, for liberalism, was to preserve life, property, and (economic) liberty - and otherwise to allow the market mechanism to determine individuals' relative social positions.

Thoughts?

Its != it's.

Sorry. Pet peeve. That and the, oh, so stupid "virii".

*runs away*

My thoughts? Too many three and four syllable words, you'll never get a earnest answer from the shallow minds here except from the fanatics - and then it'll be fifteen paragraphs long and probably mostly cut and paste. You may get one or two worth reading, and if you're lucky one of those may engage you in further discourse. Good luck.

I also bet that you'll get at least one 'Boosh is dumb' or 'Iwreck is illegal' sometime before the third page.

That's what I think.

Its != it's.

Sorry. Pet peeve. That and the, oh, so stupid "virii".

*runs away*
http://img218.exs.cx/img218/3370/grammarnazi8vu.jpg
Grammar Nazi!

The quote seems to be a pretty good description of the principles behind classical Liberalism and classocal socialism. What it does not cover is the thinking behind these positions.
The classic socialist holds a view that people are generally incompetent. That they need to have the services provided for them as they would not be capable of providing them for themselves.
The classical liberal point of view is the opposite. They assume that everyone can do everything, or at least remember to arrange to have it done. There is no leeway for human error allowed in their philosophy.

You could choose then, between admitting incompetence or asserting your perfection. Hence the appearance of less radical positions at the end of the nineteenth century.

I'm an economic moderate. Pure socialism and pure capitalism never got us anywhere good. I say we find a middle ground. Progressive taxation sounds about right.

The classic socialist holds a view that people are generally incompetent. That they need to have the services provided for them as they would not be capable of providing them for themselves.


I went through a little socialist phase and that was not my reasoning for it.



However, I am a classic liberal, and I do believe that individual rights and autonomy are the most important thing that the government can protect.

Property rights are a tricky thing to consider, as I believe that people should only be given that which they can use, but I worry about letting government decide what someone can use.

This is a query into the theoretical consequences of adhering to one economic/political way of governing as opposed to the other. I have oftentimes heard fellows lamenting socialism, making a number of arguments against it - this includes matters of freedom, property and economic growth. I have also heard socialists lament the capitalistic - or classic Liberal - way of dealing with governance, including its seeming disregard for the welfare of its citizenry and it's promotion of corruption and disenfranchisement. What I'm asking is, which is preferable? What are the pros and cons of each, and why should one be chosen over the other? What compromises are reasonable?

This question arose when I was reading some historical texts that helped placed the context of the Communist Manifesto. In it, Frederic L. Bender writes:



Thoughts?

Liberalism by its very nature is a fallacy. Too much emphasis on the individual. The fundamental condtradiction within the liberal ideology is that it stands for granting every person the the equal right to pursue their own private economic enterprise but the reality is that it will invariably result in inequality because granting individuals the freedom to make a profit will always result in exploitations and ultimately different children being born into backgrounds of different quality of life. Socialism is the only morally right political system because it is all about the individual contributing as he is required in society and recieving in return everything he needs, nothing more or less. No more religion, no more class divisions, no more exploitation and when the state eventually wither away, no more social injustice. Only those deviating from a system that values equalty above anything else would be punished in which case they would only have brought it on themselves

I'm an economic moderate. Pure socialism and pure capitalism never got us anywhere good. I say we find a middle ground. Progressive taxation sounds about right.

This is what I think. The middle path is the way for me and a balance should be struck between what th individual needs and what the group needs.

Liberalism by its very nature is a fallacy. Too much emphasis on the individual. The fundamental condtradiction within the liberal ideology is that it stands for granting every person the the equal right to pursue their own private economic enterprise but the reality is that it will invariably result in inequality because granting individuals the freedom to make a profit will always result in exploitations and ultimately different children being born into backgrounds of different quality of life. Socialism is the only morally right political system because it is all about the individual contributing as he is required in society and recieving in return everything he needs, nothing more or less. No more religion, no more class divisions, no more exploitation and when the state eventually wither away, no more social injustice. Only those deviating from a system that values equalty above anything else would be punished in which case they would only have brought it on themselves

So socialism is right because it puts limits on people, and liberalism is wrong because it focuses on the individual too much?

I would like to see how you can morally justify that idea.

So socialism is right because it puts limits on people, and liberalism is wrong because it focuses on the individual too much?

I would like to see how you can morally justify that idea.

The individual is an inextricably part of society, individual freedoms need to be restricted so that other members of society are not victimised or exploited. Liberal capitalism will always be a system of exploitation. The majority work reptitious jobs and the environment is destroyed just so a minority can have the freedom to do what they want. No individual should be granted the freedom to empower themselves above the rest of society, it's not right.

The individual is an inextricably part of society, individual freedoms need to be restricted so that other members of society are not victimised or exploited.

The individual is the reason for society. Society was formed when individuals came together to interact. The liberal will always state that a person's rights should be protected from infringement by others. Unfortunately, the right to make a decision includes the right to make a bad decision.

Liberal capitalism will always be a system of exploitation. The majority work reptitious jobs and the environment is destroyed just so a minority can have the freedom to do what they want. No individual should be granted the freedom to empower themselves above the rest of society, it's not right.

Classic liberals do not espouse the form of capitalism that you see in America and the one that you use for your basis. They wanted to protect the free market, not capitalism. In a free market, no single entity has any economic power, that means no power over labor, no power over wages, no power over prices.

Classical liberalism is far more closely related to modern little L libertarianism. Things like Nozick and Friedman and Friedman.

Maybe this is so basic, I'm missing the point?

I have also heard socialists lament the capitalistic - or classic Liberal - way of dealing with governance, including its seeming disregard for the welfare of its citizenry and it's promotion of corruption and disenfranchisement.

Obviously some don't understand the premise behind Capitalism...

It IS in considering the Welfare of others that we also get them to consider our own. That we attempt to find ways that we are able to help one another to get the things we need.

Please read 'The Wealth of Nations' by Adam Smith (Father of Modern Capitalism) to better understand the Principles behind Capitalism.

Regards,
Gaar

Obviously some don't understand the premise behind Capitalism...

It IS in considering the Welfare of others that we also get them to consider our own. That we attempt to find ways that we are able to help one another to get the things we need.

Please read 'The Wealth of Nations' by Adam Smith (Father of Modern Capitalism) to better understand the Principles behind Capitalism.

Regards,
Gaar
I think that's the most well thought out post I've ever read by you. Accurate, and with a lil' bit of reading behind it. Keep her humping! ;)

The individual is an inextricably part of society, individual freedoms need to be restricted so that other members of society are not victimised or exploited. Liberal capitalism will always be a system of exploitation. The majority work reptitious jobs and the environment is destroyed just so a minority can have the freedom to do what they want. No individual should be granted the freedom to empower themselves above the rest of society, it's not right.

What kind of freedom does socialism give. The freedom to have, the freedom to be educated, the freedom to claim your rights. The price for this freedom though is too high. You give up the freedom to succeed. You surrender the freedom to be yourself, to stand on your own feet, to be proud of what you havew done. Socialism removes motivation. Do too well and the result wil be taken from you and distributed to others who have done nothing. Why then should I bother. Of course humans should be granted freedom to succeed at what they do, to prevent this is to deny our nature as competitors.

I could accept some equality of opportunity arguments, but equality of outcome is intolerable.

The environment is destroyed by human activity, however it is organised. This does not depend on it being a classical liberal each man for himself or a Fabian social society. 6 billion people damge the environment.

The majority will work at repetitive jobs in either system, just in the socialist system the majority have no hope of ever doing anything else, in the classical liberal system they do have at least a hope.

What kind of freedom does socialism give. The freedom to have, the freedom to be educated, the freedom to claim your rights. The price for this freedom though is too high. You give up the freedom to succeed. You surrender the freedom to be yourself, to stand on your own feet, to be proud of what you havew done.
Okay... You've completely lost me, and we share the square.I got the rest. And agreed, for the most part.

Reread, and despite the beer, got it. 100%.

I'm surprised anyone got that. Rereading it makes no sense to me.
Conclusion. I am knackered, so g'night folks.

I'm surprised anyone got that. Rereading it makes no sense to me.
Conclusion. I am knackered, so g'night folks.
Is that British slang?

What kind of freedom does socialism give. The freedom to have, the freedom to be educated, the freedom to claim your rights. The price for this freedom though is too high. You give up the freedom to succeed. You surrender the freedom to be yourself, to stand on your own feet, to be proud of what you havew done. Socialism removes motivation. Do too well and the result wil be taken from you and distributed to others who have done nothing. Why then should I bother. Of course humans should be granted freedom to succeed at what they do, to prevent this is to deny our nature as competitors.

I could accept some equality of opportunity arguments, but equality of outcome is intolerable.

The environment is destroyed by human activity, however it is organised. This does not depend on it being a classical liberal each man for himself or a Fabian social society. 6 billion people damge the environment.

The majority will work at repetitive jobs in either system, just in the socialist system the majority have no hope of ever doing anything else, in the classical liberal system they do have at least a hope.

Humanity has no nature. That, and socialism is more about equality than freedom (although freedom is important for it as well). We can never be truly free as long as we're constrained by class. As a result, some loss of economic freedom is a necessity to ensure the freedom of all. Socialism believes in the same ideals as liberalism, it just uses different means to attain them (and please don't cite communism, as that was a perversion of his ideas). It wouldn't be the same in terms of work because socialism aims to lessen the exploitation and alienation of the worker.

And another point, I think the only reason capitalism has been so successful is that we've transferred the bulk of capitalist exploitation to weaker nations via global capitalism. This is supported by sociological statistics demonstrating that the global wage is at its lowest in decades, the wealth gap in and between nations is at the highest its ever been, Wallerstein's world systems theory, etc. etc. There are also numerous case studies such as the Union Carbide incident in Bhopal. Basically, any text dealing with globalisation that isn't full of propaganda and repetitious chanting of "GDP increase" would provide facts damning of capitalism.

That, and socialism is more about equality than freedom
Narcissistic. Hold the same mirror up to the socialist face, and discern her blemishes more honestly.

I'm surprised anyone got that. Rereading it makes no sense to me.
Conclusion. I am knackered, so g'night folks.
It makes perfect sense to me.

It makes perfect sense to me.
Me too, upon rereading. I posted that right after the last. So we're gathered in agreeance... suprise. ;)

Humanity has no nature.
Tell that to a modern psychologist and watch his reaction.

That, and socialism is more about equality than freedom
See Eichens comments, they are spot on.

We can never be truly free as long as we're constrained by class.
Class, ah yes, class. The ol' agitprop tool so often used by certain *cough* nations. Class is a vast oversimplification of human society and it's stratification.

As a result, some loss of economic freedom is a necessity to ensure the freedom of all.
Freedom is not a zero sum game (just like economics.) More freedom is created all the time. Of course some people have more freedom than others, but that greater freedom is a result of how they were chosen. And, I see nothing wrong with this conditions just so long as there is a baseline of freedom, which there is.

Socialism believes in the same ideals as liberalism, it just uses different means to attain them (and please don't cite communism, as that was a perversion of his ideas). It wouldn't be the same in terms of work because socialism aims to lessen the exploitation and alienation of the worker.
In any industrial society, no matter the governing system, the workers will become alienated. Only through the natural relief of the markets, and the advent of a post-industrial society, will the curse of alienation be lifted. We can already see post-industrial socieities in various parts of the world. The world is still in the industrial revolution, and over time, with the urging of the markets, this will change.

And another point, I think the only reason capitalism has been so successful is that we've transferred the bulk of capitalist exploitation to weaker nations via global capitalism.
Oh bah humbug. As I said previously, this is the industrial revolution as we saw in western Europe in the 1800's. The people of these nations, whilst currently paid poorly, will eventually rise through the exact same mechanisms as did the peoples of the western world.

This is supported by sociological statistics demonstrating that the global wage is at its lowest in decades, the wealth gap in and between nations is at the highest its ever been, Wallerstein's world systems theory, etc. etc. There are also numerous case studies such as the Union Carbide incident in Bhopal. Basically, any text dealing with globalisation that isn't full of propaganda and repetitious chanting of "GDP increase" would provide facts damning of capitalism.
Once again, perhaps a good analogy is that of the pic-nic blanket and the hot air balloon. If we tie a rope between the center of the picnic blanket and the bottom of the balloon, then the blanket (which represents the world) will go up. Now, admittedly, part of the blanket will be above another portion of the blanket, but the lower portion will continue to rise. This is how the market is working, and it will reach the "third world" in good time. The balloon didn't lift off all that long ago, so don't expect "sitcom style" results. It takes time, like all things, it takes time.

Me too, upon rereading. I posted that right after the last. So we're gathered in agreeance... suprise. ;)
What a surprise. :D

Humanity has no nature. That, and socialism is more about equality than freedom (although freedom is important for it as well). We can never be truly free as long as we're constrained by class. As a result, some loss of economic freedom is a necessity to ensure the freedom of all. Socialism believes in the same ideals as liberalism, it just uses different means to attain them (and please don't cite communism, as that was a perversion of his ideas). It wouldn't be the same in terms of work because socialism aims to lessen the exploitation and alienation of the worker.

Have you read 1984? Orwell makes the claim that people will always seperate themselves into classes. Currently, it's based on money. In the middle ages, it was based on birth. In 1984, it was based on politics. Getting rid of class is a pretty much pie-in-the-sky dream.

As for lessening the exploitation of the worker, the answer isn't socialism. It's a labor shortage. We could see this in the '90's. The economy was expanding, especially in the tech industry. College dropouts were getting jobs and starting companies because we were running out of people to employ. Or take WW2 in the US, where a good chunk of the population was in the military and the economy was trying to equip them. Most of the fringe benefits that people in America enjoy today (health insurance, etc.) came out of that era where employers were competing for jobs. If only the unions could figure out how to do that, they'd make a killing.

Have you read 1984? Orwell makes the claim that people will always seperate themselves into classes. Currently, it's based on money.
Christ, is that really what you got from the book?

socialism is more about equality than freedom
Bakunin begs to differ:

"Freedom without Socialism is privilege and injustice,
and that Socialism without freedom is slavery and brutality"

Bakunin begs to differ:

"Freedom without Socialism is privilege and injustice,
and that Socialism without freedom is slavery and brutality"
I'll politely call "Bullshit" on that cheesily optimistic statement. :rolleyes:

I'll politely call "Bullshit" on that cheesily optimistic statement. :rolleyes:
How is that bullshit?

Do you mean you don't believe it, or that you don't believe Bakunin said that?

Also how is that cheesy or optimistic? It was (iirc) stated in response to the Marxist theory of revolution and socialism.

How is that bullshit?

Do you mean you don't believe it, or that you don't believe Bakunin said that?

Also how is that cheesy or optimistic? It was (iirc) stated in response to the Marxist theory of revolution and socialism.
Becuase a compromise is realistically impossible, and that's what you've begged for with the proposed statement.

They're completely oppositional. This is what the US ans Europe are having difficult times acknowledging.

Becuase a compromise is realistically impossible, and that's what you've begged for with the proposed statement.

There is no comprimise in Bakunin's case. In his view, socialism requires freedom (and vice versa) and if one was taken away you get either "privilege and injustice" or "slavery and brutality."

There is no comprimise in Bakunin's case. In his view, socialism requires freedom (and vice versa) and if one was taken away you get either "privilege and injustice" or "slavery and brutality."

It is very, very difficult to maintain freedom under a truly socialist system. The only reason I didn't say impossible is because I try to avoid absolutes.

There is no comprimise in Bakunin's case. In his view, socialism requires freedom
Right you are... Works every time. :rolleyes:

Honestly, when the state owns everything, then you immediately create an upper class.

Are they missing these lessons today in public education?
Nomenklaturas, anyone?

Right you are... Works every time. :rolleyes:

Honestly, when the state owns everything, then you immediately create an upper class.

Umm, Bakunin was an anarchist. He no more wanted the state to own everything than you or I do.

Are they missing these lessons today in public education?
Nomenklaturas, anyone?

Socialism has more than one definition.

Umm, Bakunin was an anarchist. He no more wanted the state to own everything than you or I do.



Socialism has more than one definition.
You've just rendered yourself unintelligable... What's this about again?

What kind of freedom does socialism give. The freedom to have, the freedom to be educated, the freedom to claim your rights. The price for this freedom though is too high. You give up the freedom to succeed. You surrender the freedom to be yourself, to stand on your own feet, to be proud of what you havew done. Socialism removes motivation. Do too well and the result wil be taken from you and distributed to others who have done nothing. Why then should I bother. Of course humans should be granted freedom to succeed at what they do, to prevent this is to deny our nature as competitors.

I could accept some equality of opportunity arguments, but equality of outcome is intolerable.

The environment is destroyed by human activity, however it is organised. This does not depend on it being a classical liberal each man for himself or a Fabian social society. 6 billion people damge the environment.

The majority will work at repetitive jobs in either system, just in the socialist system the majority have no hope of ever doing anything else, in the classical liberal system they do have at least a hope.

. . .What exactly are you talking about? How does socialism remove motivation? If you'd read any Marx, you'd know that there are two ways to motivate people to work. The first one is to starve them if they don't, which is how capitalism works. The second one is to let them naturally create whatever it is that they love to create and do, which is what the whole concept of homo faber is all about. The second, offhand, seems to be the better, more just, and less alienating one.

I assume that you got that argument from some cursory understanding of the Soviet Union's history. However, the problem is that the Soviet Union after Lenin (and arguably, even before Lenin's death) was not a communist society: it was a dictatorship that used Marxist language to gain control of the means of production. In other words, it is no surprise that the workers in the Soviet Union were alienated, since Marx said that they would only stop being alienated if they gained control of the means of production, and Stalin did little more than to create a massive industrial base with himself as the sole bourgeious; ergo, the workers of the Soviet Union never took control of the means of production.

Honestly y'all, I'm not Red, but you've got to understand what Marxism is before you can go about critiquing it, otherwise all you do is punch Strawmen. Now, you might argue that man is not by nature a building creature; he is instead a slacker at heart, and needs by force to be pressed into work. That would be an argument for capitalism, as it arguably does this in the most humane way possible.


Oh bah humbug. As I said previously, this is the industrial revolution as we saw in western Europe in the 1800's. The people of these nations, whilst currently paid poorly, will eventually rise through the exact same mechanisms as did the peoples of the western world.

You mean through the massed organization of labor into labor unions?. . .Well crap, there goes your theory. . .