|
|
Post by largeham on Jun 27, 2011 19:16:09 GMT -5
What's called 'market socialism' either isn't capitalism or isn't socialism. It is a mix, under the flag of socialism. That is the point. Again it does not matter what someone wrote, or suggested years ago. It does matter what someone suggested or wrote years ago. Do liberals (European definition) ignore the writings of Smith, Say, Ricardo and von Mises? Especially Smith, considering he used the now widely discredited Labour Theory of Value. |
|
|
|
Post by m52nickerson on Jun 27, 2011 20:51:15 GMT -5
It does matter what someone suggested or wrote years ago. Do liberals (European definition) ignore the writings of Smith, Say, Ricardo and von Mises? Especially Smith, considering he used the now widely discredited Labour Theory of Value. I doesn't much matter if they ignore them or not. Classical Liberals are different then Social/Modern Liberals. In fact Classical liberals are in many ways closer to modern conservatives. In the end it is society the decides what ideals are considered. |
|
|
|
Post by Oriet on Jun 28, 2011 4:50:33 GMT -5
Lt.Fred, I think you're completely misunderstanding not just the terms communism and socialism, but also liberal and capitalism. Capitalism is purely about the flow of money between individuals for profit, which since it is called capital is where it gets its name. Anything that impedes, reduces, or eliminates the free flow money between individuals or the ability to create profit, including any kind of regulation, impedes, restricts, and limits capitalism, and can then rightfully be called anti-capitalist. This is purely definitional and requires no big-name philosopher to write a book about it since it is clearly understood by anyone with half a clue about the subject, and is already published in these things called "dictionaries." Thus we can see regulations preventing banks from charging 300% interest on a daily basis is anti-capitalist. Regulations against monopolies are anti-capitalist. Any services provided by the government, like highways, police, building codes, laws against false advertising, safety regulations, etc. are all anti-capitalist. Wage laws are anti-capitalist. Social security and payments for workers are anti-capitalist, regardless of whether it comes out of the employers or employees account, as are taxes of any form. All of these are anti-capitalist because they create restrictions on the flow of capital between individuals (which includes corporations, and not just cause of the whole "corporations legally count as people" bullshit) and restrict the amount of profit people are able to make from transactions of any sort. Now let me point out how you're wrong about liberalism. Liberalism
‣ A political orientation that favors social progress by reform and by changing laws rather than by revolution
‣ An economic theory advocating free competition and a self-regulating market Note the first part of the definition. What sort of laws can there be to encourage social progress that do not infringe in any way on the ability to generate a profit? How can you have free competition without restricting monopolies? Simple answer is you can't, at least not unless your idea of social progress is for the mass accumulation of resources into the hands of less than 0.01% of the population which leaves the other 99.99% of the population as essentially slaves (or serfs or indentured servants if you want a nicer word). Or in other words, liberalism is anti-capitalist, even if it does not seek the total elimination of a market economy. If, however, you wish to hold that any system that has a market economy is capitalist as it has capitalist elements, then you must also hold that any system that has any state owned ownership is socialist as it has socialist elements. To do otherwise is to have no consistency and thus to lose credibility in the argument. Now, with this clearly stated and easily understood (as evidenced by the fact that everyone aside from yourself already understood it) we can see that market socialism is a perfectly valid system with no contradictions in its name, as are other socialist models that do not completely eliminate individuals from participating in a market economy. So again, I tell you that every time you say socialism what you really mean is communism. Thus far you have done nothing to prove otherwise, and in fact have instead proven you do not understand the words you are arguing about. We have shown you time and time again what the words actually mean, yet you keep using them incorrectly. This has happened several times in the past, too, which is why I said we had already been over this and that you should really know better by now. |
|
|
|
Post by ltfred on Jun 29, 2011 1:22:06 GMT -5
Capitalism is purely about the flow of money between individuals for profit, It's a little bit more complex than that. Feudalism (also a market economy) is not capitalism. Capitalism is a modern economy. It's an industrialised economy. You wouldn't call Somalia capitalist (it's a developing economy). Capitalism and industrialisation are inter-dependent. Capitalism is also based on credit, banking and trade. More than ever before. If you have an idea, you can borrow money to set up a buisness to achieve it. And you can sell the products to anywhere in the world. Capitalism is a formal economy, not an informal economy. It's based on statistical science, not guessing. We know the unemployment rate because people go out and mesure it, not because we make up a number. People work in buisnesses established by the government, with legally-enforced contracts between them. Labour promises to provide a certainty of employment, in return for a promise of good pay, conditions, ect. Certainty is a basis of capitalism. Capitalism is a consumer economy, not a subsistence economy. A worker in a capitalist economy makes goods for someone else, for a wage. In a feudal economy, they make food to continue to live. Labour is specialised; you do what you're good at, increasing both productivity and quality. Also, in capitalism, you don't work for yourself. Nor are you openly forced to work for someone else. You are coerced to work for a buisnessman, at his or her profit, by the threat of starvation- not by class position or armed men. Above all, capitalism is a government-regulated economy. The banking sector totally relies on government backing. International trade totally relies on the government. The economy is formalised largely by government fiat. Capitalist governments are far larger than feudal governments, because capitalism cannot exist without a large government. I'd argue that an unrelated increase in the size of government (caused by endemic European war and the need to raise armies) led to the formalisation of economies, protectionist policies which built up industry and international trade networks. But it's possible that it happened the other way around (the emergence of capitalism forced the growth in government). This is capitalism, a much more complex system than just 'any market-based system'. It doesn't stand opposed to government involvement; it inherently relies on it. Monopolies are anti-competitive, which may end out destroying capitalism*. The justification for virtually all regulation in the US is, at it's heart, pro-capitalist. FDR or whoever thought, quite rightly, that economic inequality would cause revolution, destroying capitalism. He was probably right. The other reason for nearly all regulation is to increase economic efficiency, which is neutral on the question of capitalism. * Too many monopolies might either a) increase economic inefficiency to such a level that the economy falls apart, b) decends into revolution or c) cause a deformalisation of the economy, as corruption becomes rampant. Well, words can have technical meanings. Words in general usage are often not similar to their technical meaning in science. This is the same for political science. Liberalism is an ideology, not a definition. It has features, more than one. This is probably a helpful general usage definition, but it's not a technical description of the ideology. Certainly not. The specific system that has arisen in the modern world is capitalist. Other market systems include feudalism and a developing economy. Nope. Socialism (the state between X and communism) isn't the most common economic system ever; it's been achieved a handful of times in the modern world (Spain, Israel). |
|
|
|
Post by Vene on Jun 29, 2011 9:12:40 GMT -5
Fred, you know what would be nice? You posting the technical definitions for both ideologies as well as backing up said definitions with a reputable source (university websites are always a plus for this sort of thing).
|
|
|
|
Post by Undecided on Jun 29, 2011 23:17:17 GMT -5
Fred, you know what would be nice? You posting the technical definitions for both ideologies as well as backing up said definitions with a reputable source (university websites are always a plus for this sort of thing). Wikipedia and the Encyclopedia Britannica disagree on the definition of socialism, and I disagree with both of their definitions. The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics (a libertarian encyclopedia) and several socialist web sites disagree with both on the definition of capitalism. I don't think that there are any "technical" or unbiased definitions for these words written down anywhere. Given this, I have come to believe that, just like "American" and "democracy", "capitalism" and "socialism" are loaded and subjective words: they are better understood by analyzing how people use them than by searching for their true meaning. |
|
|
|
Post by Vene on Jun 29, 2011 23:42:37 GMT -5
Fred, you know what would be nice? You posting the technical definitions for both ideologies as well as backing up said definitions with a reputable source (university websites are always a plus for this sort of thing). Wikipedia and the Encyclopedia Britannica disagree on the definition of socialism, and I disagree with both of their definitions. The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics (a libertarian encyclopedia) and several socialist web sites disagree with both on the definition of capitalism. I don't think that there are any "technical" or unbiased definitions for these words written down anywhere. Given this, I have come to believe that, just like "American" and "democracy", "capitalism" and "socialism" are loaded and subjective words: they are better understood by analyzing how people use them than by searching for their true meaning. I can live with this. Politics is a pretty subjective in the first place and ideologies change over time and geography. |
|
|
|
Post by oftenpartisan on Jun 30, 2011 3:53:15 GMT -5
List of key ideas within Socialism
1. Concern with poverty
2. Class anaylsis of society
3. Egalitarianism
4. Common ownership of the means of production
5. Popular Soverignity
6. Human interdependence
7. Human Creativity and Sociability
8. The Virtues of co-operation
9. Idealization of work as Unalienated labour
10. Freedom as fulfilment
11. Internationalism
Key tenets of Liberalism
1. Individualism - Rational and self interested individuals who are sacrosanct
2. Contract and Consent
3. Constitutionalism (Limited Gov't) and the Rule of Law
4. Freedom as choice
5. Equality of opportunity, under the law etc
6. Social Justice based on merit
7. Tolerance
8. Separation of life into Private and Public spheres (tendency to elevate the importance of the private over the public ie. politics seen as a choice rather than a duty.)
This is taken from Barbera Goodwin's Book Using Political Ideas 4th Edition (Wiley 1997)
|
|
|
|
Post by Dragon Zachski on Jun 30, 2011 4:03:23 GMT -5
inb4 ltfred calls it bullshit/wrong.
|
|
|
|
Post by ltfred on Jun 30, 2011 6:49:31 GMT -5
Fred, you know what would be nice? You posting the technical definitions for both ideologies as well as backing up said definitions with a reputable source (university websites are always a plus for this sort of thing). A one sentence definition isn't really a good way to look at things* like ideologies and economic systems. A better way to go about it is to cite a list of characteristics or beliefs. I've defined capitalism above. Liberalism is the political ideology of human rights. Liberals believe that humans have rights, such as the right to speak, believe and assemble. Liberals believe that government action is justified by the consent of the governed- ie democracy. They believe in leaving the world a more prosperous place than they found it. Classwise, liberalism arose from the middle-class of merchants and captains of industry, and all liberals since have always seen the capitalist mix of private and public enterprise that allowed that class to become wealthy as the most effective way of creating prosperity. Liberalism is the product of capitalism and capitalism has been reinforced by the triumphs of liberalism. Liberalism has evolved since the proto-capitalist days of 1780. Liberal beliefs have changed in line with the discoveries of economic science, discoveries like Keynesianism and effective monetary policy. However, the ideology hasn't changed as much as people think. Early liberals were big fans of things like universal government education and government protection of infant industries. Socialism is a state of total equality, without government, authority, capitalism or violence. Socialists are people who want to quickly^ achieve this state, either through revolution, evolution or parliamentary action. * Not that I think you said this, just to justify my lack of a one-sentence definition. ^ Within their lifetime, typically. |
|
|
|
Post by m52nickerson on Jun 30, 2011 7:13:41 GMT -5
Your definitions are just not close to the definitions that the majority of people use.
|
|
|
|
Post by ltfred on Jun 30, 2011 7:42:19 GMT -5
Your definitions are just not close to the definitions that the majority of people use. That's because they're technical, not standard use. Of course, this is how the literature would define these concepts. |
|
|
|
Post by largeham on Jun 30, 2011 7:52:55 GMT -5
It does matter what someone suggested or wrote years ago. Do liberals (European definition) ignore the writings of Smith, Say, Ricardo and von Mises? Especially Smith, considering he used the now widely discredited Labour Theory of Value. I doesn't much matter if they ignore them or not. Classical Liberals are different then Social/Modern Liberals. In fact Classical liberals are in many ways closer to modern conservatives. In the end it is society the decides what ideals are considered. Fine, conservatives, whatever you want to call them, I'll stick with liberals. And it does matter if they ignore them or not, if say tomorrow that capitalism is a social system where most people live on subsistence farming and pay an upper class to protect them, I will have to argue with centuries worth of material. List of key ideas within Socialism 1. Concern with poverty 2. Class anaylsis of society 3. Egalitarianism 4. Common ownership of the means of production 5. Popular Soverignity 6. Human interdependence 7. Human Creativity and Sociability 8. The Virtues of co-operation 9. Idealization of work as Unalienated labour 10. Freedom as fulfilment 11. Internationalism At it's heart, socialism is anti-capitalist, it seeks to end exploitation (Marxist definition of exploitation under capitalism). Also, numbers 1, 5 and 11 aren't necessarily exclusively socialist/communist, also many of the above points are associated with socialism, but they aren't core to the ideology. Numbers 5 and 11 aren't universally accepted by all socialists, and there are also disagreements over 3, 4 and 5 (e.g. what is the dictatorship of the proletariat, etc). Socialism is a state of total equality, without government, authority, capitalism or violence. No, that is communism. Socialism is the intermediary stage which is characterised by the worker's state, the dictatorship of the proletariat. And by equality, it is only equality in class, not some uniform dystopia where exceptionally smart/good looking/strong/athletic/etc people are purged. |
|
|
|
Post by ltfred on Jun 30, 2011 7:56:25 GMT -5
Socialism is a state of total equality, without government, authority, capitalism or violence. No, that is communism. Socialism is the intermediary stage which is characterised by the worker's state, the dictatorship of the proletariat. And by equality, it is only equality in class, not some uniform dystopia where exceptionally smart/good looking/strong/athletic/etc people are purged. Ooops. My mistake. |
|
|
|
Post by m52nickerson on Jun 30, 2011 8:04:42 GMT -5
Fine, conservatives, whatever you want to call them, I'll stick with liberals. And it does matter if they ignore them or not, if say tomorrow that capitalism is a social system where most people live on subsistence farming and pay an upper class to protect them, I will have to argue with centuries worth of material. Yes your would have to argue with that material. The difference is that it would only be you. Not the entire group, or a subset, just you. |
|
