|
Post by mikemarshall on Apr 3, 2009 21:57:30 GMT
www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialismMain Entry:so·cial·ism Pronunciation:\ˈsô-shə-ˌli-zəm\ Function:noun Date:1837 1: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods 2 a: a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b: a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state 3: a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done It is often urged against many political leaders who support greater or lesser degrees of state intervention that their policies are 'socialist.' It is particularly common for Americans who consider themselves - often mistakenly - to be 'conservative' to accuse the Democratic Party and 'liberals' in general of being or advocating socialism. It is highly doubtful whether ANY senior Democrat - and certainly NOT President Obama - advocates ANY of the ideas that Webster's defines as constitutive of 'socialism.' Socialism is too often used as a pejorative word with little application to the real world. It is abundantly clear that for economic policies to deserve the name of socialism the MINIMUM requirement must be that the government owns the means of production and is responsible for the distribution of goods. It would therefore be fair to describe Soviet Russia and the Eastern Bloc as having a socialist form of economic organisation but it would NOT be fair to identify a system which is essentially simply a 'welfare state' type of society as being socialist. Nor is it fair (or indeed a true reflection of the facts) to regard socialists as inherently authoritarian. They may assign a larger share to the government in the role of public action than do those who consider themselves conservatives, but the same is true of liberals and especially libertarians. In general, the reality is that tconservatives consistently assign a far greater role to the government than do liberals and libertarians, so on that basis it would be possible to argue that conservatives and socialists have more in common with one another than with their supposed enemies. The amusing reality is that the majority of people, particularly in the United States, who consider themselves conservatives are actually liberals. I will post further threads about liberalism, conservatism, fascism, National Socialism, Communism, libertarianism, anarchism and social democracy. There ARE authoritarian socialists, generally found on the Communist or Fascist wings of the movement (it is a capital mistake to regard Fascism or National Socialism as being right-wing movements or philosophies when they are incontrovertibly based upon a left-wing orientation), but the general trend among most socialists is, and always has been, towards a guiding rather than controlling role for the state in matters outside the economic field.
|
|
|
Post by Ben Lomond on Apr 4, 2009 15:57:04 GMT
I think your argument about the similarities between socialism and the conservatives is a little fallacious. The former advocates state control, and stifles initiative, whereas the latter is much more in favour of the free market, and personal responsibility. In the long term, socialism has not worked in practice, and never will. The theory of socialism has a simplistic attraction, but it is a flawed outmoded theory doomed to failure, and wherever it has been tried around the world, it has failed. In the early stages it might even give the appearance of being efficient, but as the deficiencies inherent in the system take hold..... centralised control, a complete disregard for human nature, and above all else, a doctrine that has no place for incentive and personal responsibility, so the wheels will inevitably come off.
The capitalist system is not without its faults. No system of government ever can be; but capitalism does provide the stimulus of incentive, and without that drive, stagnation is the inevitable result. Capitalism provides a free market place where efficiency and drive and self worth matter; and in simple terms give drive and impetus to any economy. Incentivisation of the workforce is a vital component of capitalism; whereas in socialism initiative is stifled at birth. The state will provide. State welfare creeps ever outward like the red weed on Mars, choking everything it touches! Big Brother will care for you, but at a price!
We can argue today that we do not have a socialist government, for exactly what New Labour stands for is difficult to ascertain. But at heart they are socialists, who believe in a centrally controlled economy with minimal market forces; and where self drive and initative are barely tolerated. And yet without these driving forces; without this motivational drive and initiative to succeed, it disregards the human psyche, and cannot in the long run prevail. Sooner or later (as was once famously said) socialists will run out of other peoples money!.
Perhaps in a world populated by "Stepford wives", where every individual was a paragon of virtue, where every individual is willing to work for only what he needs, and needs no stimulation other than that, a form of communism, or pure socialism might just work. But that is to ignore reality, and THAT is where socialism fails. In a world faced with increasing problems such as over population, and a growing scarcity of resources, socialism can never provide the answer. The only system that has any chance of success is capitalism, even with its many faults. For only capitalism can provide the free market, and only a free market can exist in the real world, where prices reflect availability, or rarity, and thus drive economic activity in turn. But in the world of socialism, where the philosophy is towards price control and state intervention at every stage, reality is ignored....until, of course, it inevitably takes over and forces the socialist to face reality; which they are loath to do! Only the free market can provide the stimulus to ensure the necessary incentive to ensure economic efficiency. One has only to look back to the nationalised industries of the past to see the failure of socialism in action.
So, to sum up, without the effect of a capitalist free market on prices and availability, and without the stimulus of personal incentives, a socialist government will inevitably atrophy into a sclerotic, and stagnant economy. Capitalism has many flaws, and I am as disgusted as the next man at the more obvious injustices it throws up. These can be ameliorated by a fairer tax system, and this is perhaps long overdue. But capitalism works in the sense that it provides the wealth that keeps the wheels turning, whereas socialism simply cannot compete, for it is a theoretical philosophy that disregards reality and human nature. It has an alluring superficiality that cannot withstand the effects of reality for too long. And when iut fails, as it always does, we all suffer.
|
|
|
Post by mikemarshall on Apr 4, 2009 17:50:46 GMT
I think your argument about the similarities between socialism and the conservatives is a little fallacious. The former advocates state control, and stifles initiative, whereas the latter is much more in favour of the free market, and personal responsibility. In the long term, socialism has not worked in practice, and never will. The theory of socialism has a simplistic attraction, but it is a flawed outmoded theory doomed to failure, and wherever it has been tried around the world, it has failed. In the early stages it might even give the appearance of being efficient, but as the deficiencies inherent in the system take hold..... centralised control, a complete disregard for human nature, and above all else, a doctrine that has no place for incentive and personal responsibility, so the wheels will inevitably come off.
Ben, in the first place I am NOT a socialist and never have been one.
With regard to your conception of conservatism, I'd say, with the greatest respect, that you have a somewhat simplistic, not to say naive, interpretation of what conservatism actually means and in particular your claims are disproved by the evidence of history which shows clearly that in reality conservatives, FAR more than liberals, have been interveners and authoritarians.
Let's start by considering the origins of conservatism. They go back ultimately to the Court Party during Charles II, which then mutated into the Tory Party. The Tories, under the influence of Bolingbroke, became a radical and interventionist party; the Whigs, under the influence of Walpole, Pelham and Newcastle, became a conservative and laisser-faire oriented party.
It was the Tories, NOT the Whigs, who first sought to extend the franchise and reform Parliament; it was the Tories, NOT the Whigs, who first introduced 'outdoor relief,' factory acts, and other measures that raised the standard of living for the ordinary person and increased their political and economic rights.
It was the Tories, NOT the Liberals, who sought to intervene and control the political and economic life of the nation.
In America, it was the Whigs, NOT the Democrats, who adopted a similar approach to government; it was the Republicans, NOT the Democrats, who first introduced trust-busting measures and began the slow process of giving workers rights.
Conservatives have always been believers in a 'strong' state and the fact that they choose to direct its strength in different areas from socialists in no way makes them ANY less authoritarian.
The natural and instinctive tendency of BOTH conservatives AND socialists is to control and to repress. BOTH are impelled as if by some strange magnetic pull towards authoritarian approaches.
The free market is of course a pious fiction and one that is as entirely a-historical as the putative 'primitive communism' posited by Engels. Both notions do not exist, never have existed, and indeed never can exist in the real world.
Being in favour of the free market is rather like expressing belief in the tooth fairy!
One of the roles of a sensible government would of course be to encourage and develop initiative.
It is also far more beneficial to the nation to have small-scale enterprises rewarded and encouraged rather than the endless rise to world domination of Tesco!
Personal responsibility is of course a double-edged concept. Of course we must do the best we can in this world but so too does our government have the responsiblity to perform to the best of its abilities and in the interests of its citizens.
That applies whatever the political complexion of the government.
Whenever I hear an argument from human nature I know that I am about to hear some sophistry.
Human nature is NEITHER intrinsically good NOR intrinsically bad.
It is how we interact with the world around us that makes us good or bad.
Socialism is a doctrine in which I do not believe and never have done.
Conservatism, while a far more attractive philosophy, nonetheless also possesses certain fundamental defects that render it too an inadequate approach to the world.
|
|
|
Post by Ben Lomond on Apr 5, 2009 13:03:31 GMT
I am not sure that I ever accused you of being a socialist, but, be that as it may, while I can recognise the many faults inherent in our political system (left AND right) I was simply arguing that the socialist is philosophically opposed to the free market, and all that flows therefrom; while the conservatives (or the right) are more likely to be in favour. As for the history lesson...err....thanks...... I guess!
As for my support of the free market, I will accept that in the literal sense there cannot ever be a completely free market, and that there will always be government intervention in the form of taxation, price control and restrictions based on personal interests. It is a misnomer, but I use the term in the sense that I support those governments which impose the least restriction on, and interference with, international trade, and those that accept that capitalism, with all its faults, is the only system that can provide the wherewithal for social development. And for that reason, I maintain that the thrust of my premise was right, in that socialism, being opposed to the concept, will always fail in the long run.
And I do not think we are too far apart on that point.
|
|
|
Post by swl on Apr 5, 2009 17:27:53 GMT
The Socialists may not own the means of production (what's left), but they certainly own the banks now.
|
|
|
Post by Ben Lomond on Apr 5, 2009 18:56:45 GMT
The Socialists may not own the means of production (what's left), but they certainly own the banks now. Today...the banks. Tomorrow...the WORLD!!!
|
|
|
Post by DAS (formerly BushAdmirer) on Apr 10, 2009 13:32:06 GMT
I don't think the term Socialism has the same meaning today as in that textbook or dictionary definition. The term Socialism in current use refers to governments that assume responsibility for care and welfare of the people (feeding them, medicating them, housing them, etc.). A modern Socialist is someone who expects the government to take care of his needs. A conservative is someone who expects people to take responsibility for themselves and not become leeches, or wards of the state, who live off the efforts of others.
Modern Socialism covers a wide range of today's governments ranging from Sweden to Venezuela and Cuba. America's Democrats are not truly Socialists but their ideas trend in that direction.
|
|
|
Post by Liberator on Apr 10, 2009 13:47:54 GMT
I think Socialism out-dated because it stops with the working man's ownership of the factory. There is more to life than the work men have traditionally done and ownership is no use without control, whether that is public ownership with an uncontrollable proxy State in real charge or share ownership with an uncontrollable proxy Directorship in real charge.
Economic processes should come under direct control by and for the public they serve. Nobody exploited the workforce and created work for its own 'moral' value regardless of need or useful production more than the old 'Communist' regimes.
|
|
|
Post by DAS (formerly BushAdmirer) on Apr 28, 2009 1:50:01 GMT
Socialism is great in theory but very very poor in practice. It's been tried in many countries around the globe but so far there are zero success stories. Socialism, along with it's first cousin Communism, has been a complete failure whenever and wherever it has been tried.
|
|
|
Post by porkypie on Apr 28, 2009 6:27:36 GMT
Why can not Socialism and Conservatism share power. What is wrong with essential services gas, water, electricity, health service etc; be in the hands of the government and making widges and wodges be in the hands of the Capitalists?
porky
|
|
|
Post by tg on Apr 28, 2009 19:08:14 GMT
Why can not Socialism and Conservatism share power. What is wrong with essential services gas, water, electricity, health service etc; be in the hands of the government and making widges and wodges be in the hands of the Capitalists? porky The idea of a 'mixed economy' has been around for some time and already operates to a greater of lesser degree in a number of countries including the UK and the US. Yet rather than being seen as an effective compromise between two opposing ideologies, I suspect it is regarded by one as a slippery slope towards the other.
|
|
|
Post by fretslider on Apr 28, 2009 19:16:55 GMT
The problem is socialism is not a concrete philosophy of fixed doctrine and programme. It is many things to many people. Some socialists advocate the complete nationalisation of the means of production, distribution, and exchange; while others advocate state control of capital within the framework of a market economy.
|
|
|
Post by clemiethedog on May 4, 2009 12:44:36 GMT
I don't like stopping at red lights, but since doing otherwise is a crime, I stop and wait for the light to turn green. Last week I mailed a bill through the postal service; it reached its intended destination without delay. If my neighbor's house catches fire, I'm reasonably certain that the local fire department will extinguish the blaze. I have some friends who lost their jobs; fortunately they have unemployment insurance and supplemental health care so they don't die in the streets. We have some bad and some good public schools; the public schools I attended did a satisfactory job. The Amtrack train once again made its scheduled run to Chicago this morning. Some of the pot holes from the thaw this spring have been filled. Because of the severe economic recession, there is little money circulating and the majority of those who are working are a mite cautious about spending; I'm glad the government took the sound advice from the Keynesians and are pumping cash into the market.
|
|
|
Post by Liberator on May 4, 2009 21:45:53 GMT
The two great things about Libertarians are that they are completely ignorant of history, "been there done that" and that is why we no longer have their Golden Age of individual enterprise, and second, that they can never explain just how massive undertakings like building aircraft can be achieved without massive companies and factories. Could add a third thing, that when backed into a corner about how their anarcho-capitalism is supposed to work, it suddenly sprouts 'governement' and armed forces and police just like the nasty old world of 'socialism'.
We know what happens when you have private police and fire and health insurances and roads and armies and all the rest of it. The police turn into protection rackets, the mercenaries walk off when you can't pay them and need them the most, the fire service lets the house next door burn because it's not signed up and when it catches yours is too well established for them, and the health service allows pools of disease to fester among those unable to pay to infect those who can. Been there, done that, and been geting rid of it since the 18th century. There's a clue: what century was the USA established?
|
|