PDA

View Full Version : Taking Socialism Seriously



Chris
02-23-2012, 08:37 AM
This article pretty well nails the differences between the left and right.


Taking Socialism Seriously (http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/02/taking_socialism_seriously.html)
In a master/slave world there is no right or wrong. There are the strong and the weak (the rich and the poor). Socialism sees the world through the prism of master/slave. From this vantage point "truth" is synonymous with "power." Socialists claim to be able to use that power, by making the state the locus of authority, to bring about justice and peace. To borrow a phrase appropriate to the occasion, let's descend to this "low but solid ground" and take socialism seriously. There is a way, using the master/slave logic of the left, to distinguish legitimate from illegitimate political power.


These two positions are the pillars of leftist thinking:


(1) an "objective" or fair government, and
(2) justice through full equality.


The second pillar (justice) can be split into a complimentary pair of concepts:


2a) Equality before the law, and
2b) (approximate) economic equivalence.


If a leftist thinking person is sincere in his or her support of these aims, notice how much this person shares with conservatism. Conservatives also want (1) an objective, accountable, government and they demand (2a) equality before the law.


The difference between a sincere socialist and a genuine conservative is that the socialist's goals depends upon the existence of


(1) an objectively ruled and judicially unbiased state
(2a) to establish and enforce legal equality, and
(2b) to ensure economic equivalence -- i.e., to "spread the wealth."


The conservative position on (2b) is that economics is not a zero sum game; wealth is not shared -- it is created and then voluntarily transferred. Government intervention will almost always favor the benefactors of the persons currently in power. Conservatives desire objective or fair legislation and the transparent administration of the law (1) as do all decent people. But, like the Founding Fathers, conservatives are skeptical that this goal can be achieved and sustained.


In order to understand and use the Hegelian/Marxist logic of the left, one must first take these socialist objectives seriously. In fact, one must take socialist aspirations more seriously than many on the left take those goals. Here are current examples of (1) and (2b): First, President Obama's promise of transparency in government was a pledge -- attractive to the left, to moderates, and to conservatives -- for "objective" governing. Clearly, Obama has not kept his principal campaign promise. By no rational measure is "accountability" (1) a characteristic of the Obama administration. Second, Obama's stated (socialist) desire to "spread the wealth" (2b) has not been achieved -- at least not in a fashion that satisfies the aims of the left. If anything, Obama has continued the policy of the presidents who preceded him -- to spread the wealth to his well-heeled political supporters not to the poor and the middle-class.


The reason for the disagreement between the socialist and the conservative is the socialist's acceptance of a master/slave world. Power in this world is wealth-based or economic. According to the socialist, in the modern world the masters and slaves are, respectively, the rich and the poor. An economy based on capital is, from a socialist's view, the struggle between the haves and the have-nots. (Thus, the OWS's protests and claims to be members of the "99.")...

Conley
02-23-2012, 10:33 AM
There's that fairness argument again:

"Conservatives desire objective or fair legislation and the transparent administration of the law (1) as do all decent people"


It's unfortunate that point of decency has to come up in these discussions. It's not a matter of good versus evil. Well, not intentionally anyway, though I would say ignorance is a form of evil in some cases. :laugh:

wingrider
02-23-2012, 03:50 PM
funny how the socialist philosophy though proven wrong over and over again , is still able to raise its ugly head. when are we gonna put a bullet in its brain and end the madness.

Captain Obvious
02-23-2012, 05:18 PM
What's really at the root of the issue isn't so much democracy or socialism or capitalism or communism or anything like that, it's the class structure and favoritism.

In a Utopian setting, all these things have value and potential. We don't, never have or never will live in a Utopian setting so the real question that is never addressed is - what system works best in a dysfunctional class structure?

Chris
02-23-2012, 07:59 PM
Take away the Platonic/Hegelian/Maxian class structure, then ask what system works best, for that class structure is a system.

RollingWave
02-23-2012, 10:05 PM
It really depend on the definition, by the wide definition you could easily argue that public schools are socialist too, but I hardly doubt any serious folks would claim that public schools should be abolished. (compulsary elementary school education wasn't total in the USA until the end of WW1. )

The Marxist argument of Socialism is way over the top, but one should also realize the condition of the rise of such ideology came at the time in the later 19th and early 20th C, you know, the days when the social condition of labors in the west made China's today look like heaven in comparison.

Chris
02-23-2012, 10:22 PM
The federal public school system should be abolished.

RollingWave
02-23-2012, 10:42 PM
Ahhh but your talking about education's control being returned to the states, which is obviously up for debate, but if a state say... legislate so that elementary schools (or equivalents) are no longer complusary while child labor is again legal, would that really be ok? (or have any chance in hell of gaining public support?)

Conley
02-24-2012, 12:03 AM
Ahhh but your talking about education's control being returned to the states, which is obviously up for debate, but if a state say... legislate so that elementary schools (or equivalents) are no longer complusary while child labor is again legal, would that really be ok? (or have any chance in hell of gaining public support?)

It wouldn't be ok, but as you point out, it would be up to the state to decide. The likelihood of a state passing this would be the same as the federal government passing it - none.

Chris
02-24-2012, 06:47 AM
Ahhh but your talking about education's control being returned to the states, which is obviously up for debate, but if a state say... legislate so that elementary schools (or equivalents) are no longer complusary while child labor is again legal, would that really be ok? (or have any chance in hell of gaining public support?)
Yes. Then those who disagreed could move to another state and those who agreed could move there. Over time, the better system would reveal itself, or states woul borrow from each other components that worked, abandon what didn't. It's how federalism should work.

RollingWave
02-25-2012, 09:57 AM
Yes. Then those who disagreed could move to another state and those who agreed could move there. Over time, the better system would reveal itself, or states woul borrow from each other components that worked, abandon what didn't. It's how federalism should work.

sure I don't disagree with it in general concept, I merely point out the probable fact that the liklihood of a state gaining anything close to enough of a popular support to abandon public education in a developed country seems very very very very low.

Peter1469
02-25-2012, 10:26 AM
Public education does take a lot of pressure off parents. Parents will allow for a certain amount of indoctrination in order to avoid the responsibility of educating their own kids. The question is how much is too much before parents say no more.

RollingWave
02-25-2012, 11:10 AM
Public education does take a lot of pressure off parents. Parents will allow for a certain amount of indoctrination in order to avoid the responsibility of educating their own kids. The question is how much is too much before parents say no more.
True, but to be fair, there are plenty of parents that send their kids to private schools in a similar fashion anyway (aka shoot and forget)

Peter1469
02-25-2012, 12:16 PM
Very true

Mister D
02-25-2012, 01:15 PM
sure I don't disagree with it in general concept, I merely point out the probable fact that the liklihood of a state gaining anything close to enough of a popular support to abandon public education in a developed country seems very very very very low.

I can imagine public disgust reaching a level where such a measure could gain popular support. The problem is that there are many vested interests in the public education system that will fight tooth and nail for its survival.

Conley
02-25-2012, 01:36 PM
IMO the idea of public education is just too entrenched for the idea to ever take root even if those interests weren't involved.

Peter1469
02-25-2012, 01:44 PM
The Homeschool movement is getting bigger.

Chris
02-25-2012, 01:53 PM
I think earlier the distinction between federal and state public education was made and that's important. If education were returned to the states, at least the experimentation inherent in a federalist system would follow and like find better ways. Jefferson's vision of a public school system was down at the township or country level.

Peter1469
02-25-2012, 01:54 PM
I like Jefferson's idea better.

Conley
02-25-2012, 01:59 PM
I think earlier the distinction between federal and state public education was made and that's important. If education were returned to the states, at least the experimentation inherent in a federalist system would follow and like find better ways. Jefferson's vision of a public school system was down at the township or country level.

Good point. I agree that would be preferable.

Mister D
02-25-2012, 02:09 PM
Interesting. I thin we are all in agreement. :shocked: So far that is!

Chris
02-26-2012, 02:00 PM
In light of the discussion on education, this video might be interesting. I don't agree with all that's said, especially on the founder's vision, but it raises many interesting point.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zDZFcDGpL4U&feature=player_embedded#!

RollingWave
02-27-2012, 01:07 AM
IMO the idea of public education is just too entrenched for the idea to ever take root even if those interests weren't involved.

Given the backgrounds of which such ideas came to be (again, see late 19th early 20th C western world), I think there's plenty of good reasons to belive that, sure, having a lot more option on the table is good, but some form of public education will almost surely remain on the table in the vast vast majority of cases.

Conley
02-28-2012, 09:42 AM
Given the backgrounds of which such ideas came to be (again, see late 19th early 20th C western world), I think there's plenty of good reasons to belive that, sure, having a lot more option on the table is good, but some form of public education will almost surely remain on the table in the vast vast majority of cases.

Right. I think some degree of public education is absolutely necessary. It betters our society over the long run and especially gives children a chance where they might not have one otherwise. Literacy is key. Chris's voucher idea is a possibility also.

wingrider
02-29-2012, 01:28 AM
my grandson is in the online school and he loves it.. internet school is the best ..

Conley
02-29-2012, 09:45 AM
my grandson is in the online school and he loves it.. internet school is the best ..

Does he get to play with other kids? Socialization is an important part of school.

wingrider
02-29-2012, 09:41 PM
Does he get to play with other kids? Socialization is an important part of school.


yes he does.. not on a daily basis but he interacts with other kids on weekends and such.. He really likes the program and is doing excellent.

Conley
02-29-2012, 09:48 PM
yes he does.. not on a daily basis but he interacts with other kids on weekends and such.. He really likes the program and is doing excellent.

Well that is great. I really think the internet can be a great way to learn. I remember having to ride my bike to the library to research something and now we have pages and pages at the click of a button. Amazing stuff.

wingrider
02-29-2012, 09:51 PM
yeah Bear ( my grandson) loves to play basketball and he gets with friends on saturday and shoots hoops. its cool

check this out though .. He is 12 years old stands 5 ft 11 and weighs about 160.. amazing kid.. and to top it off .. he likes me.. go figure

Conley
02-29-2012, 09:55 PM
:laugh: Bear is a perfect name for him...good thing he likes you or you'd be in trouble! Another thing about kids today that I can't get over is how freaking huge they are.

RollingWave
02-29-2012, 10:16 PM
if he's 5'11 at 12 there's a pretty decent chance he might be tall enough to play basketball at a pretty high level (like at least NCAA) no? assuming that's he's not uncordinated .

Anyway, back to the socialism topic, at the end of the day, my point is that if we define socialism as some sort of government intervention on the economy and social aspect of the people, then it's basically everywhere and anywhere in any developed country (or really any non totally messed up country like say... the Congos). I'd think most folks would agree that government will always have SOME role in society, economically and socially speaking . we're not going to go back to the days where 80% or more of kids slave away in factories / farms , or where employers hire folks to crack down on unions (these were all technically legal at those points.)

The line between which laws become regulation or vice versa is murky at best. at what point do public institution go from neccesity to excessive is also hard to define. these are all obvious issues of any modern (or even pre-modern) states.

So at the end of the day, the question is really how much should government 's role in society be (because the answer can not be 0, unless your an anarchest). and it's obviously not going to be 100 (even communism can't do that). so it's obviously something in between.

That's my main worry of the tone on American politics in general, by these definition socialism is basically a strawman at best, government is always going to be in society, by defining socialism as some sort of evil / bad ideal is really missing the whole point of issue, the question is merely on how and how much of the role of government in society would be the most ideal for the entire population. The answer of this question will always vary between different state / region / countries and also vary over time, there's simply no fixed permenent answer, by framing socialism as "evil" (which some GOP seem to be going that far) your taking a very unflexible postion on a question that is very wide open with no true fixed yes or no answers, by framing socialism US politics is essentially putting idealogical debates ahead of practical rationalities. Which is.. really.. how much different from the USSR?

The cold war was not won because the my idealogy > your idealogy, it's because one side stuck to idealogy stubbornly while the other was really just practical in their decision and policise and institutions, many of the strawman issues being labeled as "socialism" in the USA today were born in the age of the red scare (which happened every earlier than the Cold War.). if those things weren't really that much of a issue even back then, why would it be now?

wingrider
03-01-2012, 12:19 AM
you raise a lot of interesting points.. yes Government has to be involved in a practical way in society, ie laws that deal with child labor and corporations ripping off consumers.. but I kinda draw the line when it comes to government telling business that they have to operate in a certain way, and regulations that virtully hamstring the small business man.. where does government get off telling private business that they cannot allow smoking for example or they have to hire so and so because of AA ? it doesn't make sense for government to cripple a business before it even gets started.. safety nets are one thing , intrusion in the private sector is a different matter altogether.

RollingWave
03-01-2012, 12:47 AM
right, we should obviously draw the line somewhere, but do so by debating the relative merits and cost, but based simply on a fixed ideological POV.

Smoking for example, is a complex as hell issue, almost any and every study conclude that it's pretty bad for your health in the long run for most normal folks, and what' worse is that it's equally and maybe even more hazardous for folks around the smoker, which is really the center of the issue. becuase if your only making a known choice that effect your own health that's one thing, but if such choice also effect other ppl's.. that's a bit different.

wingrider
03-01-2012, 01:53 AM
right, we should obviously draw the line somewhere, but do so by debating the relative merits and cost, but based simply on a fixed ideological POV.

Smoking for example, is a complex as hell issue, almost any and every study conclude that it's pretty bad for your health in the long run for most normal folks, and what' worse is that it's equally and maybe even more hazardous for folks around the smoker, which is really the center of the issue. becuase if your only making a known choice that effect your own health that's one thing, but if such choice also effect other ppl's.. that's a bit different.

so you believe that Government has the right to tell a business man how to conduct his business?? as long as it is for the common good then everything is good to go.?? what about the business mans rights? do they fit into the picture at all? after all it is his money , his time and his expertise that went into making the business .

RollingWave
03-01-2012, 04:07 AM
so you believe that Government has the right to tell a business man how to conduct his business?? as long as it is for the common good then everything is good to go.?? what about the business mans rights? do they fit into the picture at all? after all it is his money , his time and his expertise that went into making the business .

Wing, for the purpose of laws, coperations (and government organization, and any organization really) are considered to be "legal person" (where as a real person would be considered "natural person" ) which means in effect, yes, they are an organiation that must adher to the law.

Since I'm pretty sure we all agree that people should adher to the rule of law in genearl, I see no problem of the logic in coperations doing the same, the matter of course is simply debating the merits and relative cost of individual legislation.

I do totally agree with that many laws are excessively complex and over the top in the US (And any other country really). along with it's tax codes, but the answer to the problem isn't that government should never be able to regulat / restrict coperations in any way, just like when a ship is leaking, the answer is not going to be to just blow it up (which would certainly make the leaking cease to be a problem :grin:).

The Ship analogy tend to be pretty much a good summary of the whole problem, if everyone do what's in their best interest (for example, not rowing the ship so you don't get too tired) then everyone will soon be equally screwed.

wingrider
03-01-2012, 07:45 AM
Wing, for the purpose of laws, coperations (and government organization, and any organization really) are considered to be "legal person" (where as a real person would be considered "natural person" ) which means in effect, yes, they are an organiation that must adher to the law.

Since I'm pretty sure we all agree that people should adher to the rule of law in genearl, I see no problem of the logic in coperations doing the same, the matter of course is simply debating the merits and relative cost of individual legislation.

I do totally agree with that many laws are excessively complex and over the top in the US (And any other country really). along with it's tax codes, but the answer to the problem isn't that government should never be able to regulat / restrict coperations in any way, just like when a ship is leaking, the answer is not going to be to just blow it up (which would certainly make the leaking cease to be a problem :grin:).

The Ship analogy tend to be pretty much a good summary of the whole problem, if everyone do what's in their best interest (for example, not rowing the ship so you don't get too tired) then everyone will soon be equally screwed.

but that still doesn't answer the question .. should goverment be so onerous that business cannot thrive under governments heavy hand.

why do we have to conform to a one size fits all regulations, with laws that curtail a busness or an indviduals rights under the bill of rights. just because it is for the common good could in the long run be used to pass any type of law

Chris
03-01-2012, 09:06 AM
Common good? See The Myth of the Greater Good (http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/2134-The-Myth-of-the-Greater-Good). That's been a noble lie since Plato.

RollingWave
03-01-2012, 12:25 PM
but that still doesn't answer the question .. should goverment be so onerous that business cannot thrive under governments heavy hand.

why do we have to conform to a one size fits all regulations, with laws that curtail a busness or an indviduals rights under the bill of rights. just because it is for the common good could in the long run be used to pass any type of law

It's all relative, I have no fixed answer, I think it really changes depending on the situation, I merely point out that legally speaking it's obviously not a travesty, while practically speaking I can think of plenty of cases where it would be acceptable and even good, let's just take for example the irony of many US media / politicians arguing for "deregulation" yet at the same time condem the working condtions in Foxconn factory (or Chinese factory in general), hey.. isn't that what you want? the company and do whatever the shite it wants ?


Common good? See The Myth of the Greater Good (http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/2134-The-Myth-of-the-Greater-Good). That's been a noble lie since Plato.

Chris, IMHO that article is your classic using very elaborate logical debate and language to try and spin words around while not actually saying anything different, he doesn't actually advocate we do anything different from what we would do with the general "common good" approach. he mere say we're not actually doing it out of common goods. but should still do it non the less, practically speaking then what's the difference? except that his argument spin it around in so many circle to achieve the exact same thing.

Conley
03-01-2012, 12:31 PM
There are a lot of dangers with deregulation, but many of them are the government not knowing when to get out of the way. Yes, there should be basic conditions like no child labor, worker safety, environmental protections to avoid the 'Chinese factories' you mention above, but these should be at a basic level and after that, government should be out of the way. This also means that when those private businesses fail they can't come to the federal government and ask to be bailed out with the taxpayers money. They must rise and fall on their own merits or the system fails.

wingrider
03-01-2012, 05:28 PM
There are a lot of dangers with deregulation, but many of them are the government not knowing when to get out of the way. Yes, there should be basic conditions like no child labor, worker safety, environmental protections to avoid the 'Chinese factories' you mention above, but these should be at a basic level and after that, government should be out of the way. This also means that when those private businesses fail they can't come to the federal government and ask to be bailed out with the taxpayers money. They must rise and fall on their own merits or the system fails.

thank you .. you expressed eloquently what I have been trying to say..