Why is it?

[Gunny]

Your definition of "liberal" is wholly politicized and bastardized. Do you really hate individual freedom? Do you really hate the Bill of Rights? Do you really think the government should be allowed to infringe upon your personal life in any way it sees fit? If you answer no, then you support the true concept of liberalism.

You in turn are dictionary-definition literalizing. In the vernacular, liberals is used in opposition to conservatives so everybody knows what team jersey everyone else is wearing.

 

[manifold]

In the vernacular, liberals is used in opposition to conservatives so everybody knows what team jersey everyone else is wearing.

Yes, you are 100% correct and I'm well aware of this.

But I don't have to like it nor do I have to accept it. The bottom line is that at best it's an oversimplification and at worst it's just plain insidious political propagandizing.

I'll ask you the same question I asked Ravir, which jersey are the Libertarians wearing?

 

[Gunny]

Yes, you are 100% correct and I'm well aware of this.

But I don't have to like it nor do I have to accept it. The bottom line is that at best it's an oversimplification and at worst it's just plain insidious political propagandizing.

I'll ask you the same question I asked Ravir, which jersey are the Libertarians wearing?

True, you do not have to like it or accept it. However, if the audience you are attempting to make a point to does, then instead of making your point, you end up giving an English class.

Libertarians are split into two camps, one on the left and one on the right, depending on which libertarian ideal appeals most to them. For instance isolationists would be on the right while the anti-authority/anarchists would be on the left. What they have in common is both beliefs are extreme.

 

[Diuretic]

This interesting thread has thrown up reasons why I don't like political labelling. This and the fact that definitions shift in time and place.

On the economic side. I'm opposed to slave economics (ancient Greece, ancient Rome etc); I'm opposed to feudalism; I'm opposed to mercantilism. My reasons for opposition to those economic systems is that there is wholesale exploitation and oppression need to run them. And they're not just historical artifacts, they can be seen in some countries today.

I live in a country that has a reasonably well-regulated (but it could do with more regulation, the corruption in business here is unbelievable) capitalist economy that is accurately described as a "mixed" form. I'm okay with it, it's useful and the exploitation is minimal. But given the world crisis in resources (check the food stories in the press) it seems to me that socialism is the future. Just one point, I'm of the view that socialism emerges from capitalism, not that socialism erupts in revolution and replaces capitalism.

In terms of personal freedom, I want to see individual freedom maximised as far as practicable. The limits should be determined using various criteria (eg rights of others; social cohesion and so on) but the underlying principle should be that rights aren't granted but may have to be limited for the common good but limits must be minimal and in accord with necessity not government fiat.

In terms of society. I believe that each individual has obligations to every other individual and those obligations can be met individually and collectively through democratically elected government.

That's enough for now, don't want to go on and on.

 

[Gunny]

This interesting thread has thrown up reasons why I don't like political labelling. This and the fact that definitions shift in time and place.

On the economic side. I'm opposed to slave economics (ancient Greece, ancient Rome etc); I'm opposed to feudalism; I'm opposed to mercantilism. My reasons for opposition to those economic systems is that there is wholesale exploitation and oppression need to run them. And they're not just historical artifacts, they can be seen in some countries today.

I live in a country that has a reasonably well-regulated (but it could do with more regulation, the corruption in business here is unbelievable) capitalist economy that is accurately described as a "mixed" form. I'm okay with it, it's useful and the exploitation is minimal. But given the world crisis in resources (check the food stories in the press) it seems to me that socialism is the future. Just one point, I'm of the view that socialism emerges from capitalism, not that socialism erupts in revolution and replaces capitalism.

In terms of personal freedom, I want to see individual freedom maximised as far as practicable. The limits should be determined using various criteria (eg rights of others; social cohesion and so on) but the underlying principle should be that rights aren't granted but may have to be limited for the common good but limits must be minimal and in accord with necessity not government fiat.

In terms of society. I believe that each individual has obligations to every other individual and those obligations can be met individually and collectively through democratically elected government.

That's enough for now, don't want to go on and on.

Socialism doesn't emerge from anything. It never has and never will. It does not take into account the nature of man. In the bastardized versions that attempt socialism, all STILL have a ruling class and the lesser-entitled.

No thanks. If you want to live in a cookie cutter world with a cookie cutter house and cookie cutter car, with cookie cutter pay from and cookie cutter family and cookie cutter days upon days working to support the entitled rulin gclass and its machine until the end of your cookie cutter existence, you can have THAT.

People who go out and earn more should have more. That is fair, and that is how it should be. They should not be punished by redistributing what they earn, nor should they be stifled from excelling because the "norm" is the lowest common denominator.

Perhaps you htink desire to excel can be bred out of Man, but then, without that, we're already dead. Every inch of progress Man has made is based upon it, and as long as you have it, you will not have your socialist utopia because those that desire to achieve will never be happy.

 

[Diuretic]

The theory is that socialism will emerge from capitalism, Marx made this claim in Critique of the Gotha Programme.

The nature of man? If by that you mean that how we organise ourselves now is somehow guided by our humaneness? I've heard this argument before, that capitalism reflects the true nature of humanity. It's not a good argument. I mentioned other forms of economic system, including slavery, but even before that humans banded together for mutual advantage – the nature of humans is to cooperate for survival, not to compete with one another inside a micro society. The competition in capitalism is a human construct, it's an invention, it isn't innate to human nature. We only think it is because we've known nothing else.

The point of Marx's argument about the emergence of socialism was that eventually the state and its appartus disappear, but that early socialism is, in his phrase, “still stamped with the birthmarks of the old society from whose womb it emerges.” The examples we've seen thus far have been stillborn.

Your points about people who go out and earn more should have more being fair; redistribution being punishment and stifling the urge to excel are factors related to capitalism, they're not critiques of socialism.

Man's progress doesn't have much to do with the desire to excel, it's probably more about survival. If you take a quick look at human pre-history to now you can see that humans only got to this point because of their ability to cooperate to survive. As for utopia, I've never said that there would be a utopia, just a lack of exploitation. I would think that factor alone would improve the level of happiness in humanity.

 

[Ravi]

This reminds me of a conversation on another forum that never got resolved. It was stated that socialism destroys creativity.

What do you think?

 

[Gunny]

The theory is that socialism will emerge from capitalism, Marx made this claim in Critique of the Gotha Programme.

Marxism, or a bastardized verision thereof has failed each and every time it's been attempted.

The nature of man? If by that you mean that how we organise ourselves now is somehow guided by our humaneness? I've heard this argument before, that capitalism reflects the true nature of humanity. It's not a good argument. I mentioned other forms of economic system, including slavery, but even before that humans banded together for mutual advantage – the nature of humans is to cooperate for survival, not to compete with one another inside a micro society. The competition in capitalism is a human construct, it's an invention, it isn't innate to human nature. We only think it is because we've known nothing else.

I'm making no such argument as yours, so your response to whatever argument you have heard before isn't relevant.

The nature of humans is to survive, not to cooperate for survival. If survival means taking what another human has, then one either succeeds or fails in that endeavor.

Man is an animal. It is perfectly normal animal behavior to compete for survivial. Put man in a society and the strong will always compete to survive "better." I completely disagree it is a "human" construct. Natural selection is part of biology and observed in almost every animal species on Earth.

The point of Marx's argument about the emergence of socialism was that eventually the state and its appartus disappear, but that early socialism is, in his phrase, “still stamped with the birthmarks of the old society from whose womb it emerges.” The examples we've seen thus far have been stillborn.

And again, it has no chance of succeeding as long as Man is involved in it. Where it WILL succeed is in a flock of sheep. That's because they have no instinct for survival nor a desire that extends beyond mere existence at the moment.

Your points about people who go out and earn more should have more being fair; redistribution being punishment and stifling the urge to excel are factors related to capitalism, they're not critiques of socialism.

You're absolutely correct because there is nothing fair about socialism. It forces the strong to prop up the weak.

Man's progress doesn't have much to do with the desire to excel, it's probably more about survival. If you take a quick look at human pre-history to now you can see that humans only got to this point because of their ability to cooperate to survive. As for utopia, I've never said that there would be a utopia, just a lack of exploitation. I would think that factor alone would improve the level of happiness in humanity.

Of course Man's progress has to do with a desire to excel. If it was only about survival we'd still live in caves according to your logic. But the desire to survive better is a desire to excel. That's brought us from the cave to the condo. And those who excelled throughout history -- the inventors -- worked as individuals, not as members of a community to do so. In fact, in most documented cases, progress had ot drag the community kicking and screaming to new ideals.

Socialism amounts to being the aforementioned flock of sheep. That is not living, IMO. That's existing, waiting to die. And again, you will never achieve true socialism with Man because those who wish to excel and be rewarded for doing so will never accept it. I sure as Hell won't.

 

[Diuretic]

This reminds me of a conversation on another forum that never got resolved. It was stated that socialism destroys creativity.

What do you think?

I don't blame people for thinking that given the major models we've seen so far have showed the power of the state as in the Stalinist bureaucracy of the USSR and the totalitarian centralism of the PRC. But the theoretical model explicitly rejects statism and the sort of stifling societies of the USSR and China.

 

[manifold]

This reminds me of a conversation on another forum that never got resolved. It was stated that socialism destroys creativity.

What do you think?

hmmmm? Interesting question. I'm not really sure, but if a couple of old adages are true, it would support this assertion. One being that socialism minimizes suffering and the other being that suffering is a powerful catalyst for creativity.

 

[Ravi]

hmmmm? Interesting question. I'm not really sure, but if a couple of old adages are true, it would support this assertion. One being that socialism minimizes suffering and the other being that suffering is a powerful catalyst for creativity.

Isn't it though?

There are a couple of schools of thought on what spurs creativity. One school claims that being happy allows one to be more creative. So it is possible that alleviating the day to day worries of feeding yourself and your family would lead to a more creative state of mind.

There is also a correlation between depression and creativity. It is also possible that those that would be miserable under socialism (like Gunny, above) would channel their misery into more creative outlets.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

The point of Marx's argument about the emergence of socialism was that eventually the state and its appartus disappear, but that early socialism is, in his phrase, “still stamped with the birthmarks of the old society from whose womb it emerges.” The examples we've seen thus far have been stillborn.

So what makes you think socialism is the answer?

Man's progress doesn't have much to do with the desire to excel, it's probably more about survival. If you take a quick look at human pre-history to now you can see that humans only got to this point because of their ability to cooperate to survive. As for utopia, I've never said that there would be a utopia, just a lack of exploitation. I would think that factor alone would improve the level of happiness in humanity.

Why do you equate capitalism with "exploitation" and not socialism?

I don't blame people for thinking that given the major models we've seen so far have showed the power of the state as in the Stalinist bureaucracy of the USSR and the totalitarian centralism of the PRC. But the theoretical model explicitly rejects statism and the sort of stifling societies of the USSR and China.

What "theoretical model" is that?

 

[ReillyT]

First, I am not a Marxist (in the sense that I espouse outright socialism or communism), so don't respond to me personally about this.

Why do you equate capitalism with "exploitation" and not socialism?

Capitalism is based upon the exploitation of a proletariat by a capital-endowned bourgeoisie. It can only exist through the accumulation of capital by this bourgeoisie. You can't have capitalism without exploitation, as without surplus extraction and accumulation, you lose incentives to produce.

Socialism in its theoretical form isn't based upon this model (which is why it doesn't seem to work very well).

What "theoretical model" is that?

Marxism

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Capitalism is based upon the exploitation of a proletariat by a capital-endowned bourgeoisie. It can only exist through the accumulation of capital by this bourgeoisie. You can't have capitalism without exploitation, as without surplus extraction and accumulation, you lose incentives to produce.

Socialism in its theoretical form isn't based upon this model (which is why it doesn't seem to work very well).

Capitalism is "exploitation" only in the sense of seeking profit. Profit is a powerful motive which leads to lots of progress that winds up actually helping the "proletariat". Just look at the shining example of the United States…our poor are considered rich in other countries....we're not exactly an "exploited" people in the negative sense.

Socialism is more exploitive than capitalism because the state forcibly takes from one to give to another....forced exploitation is far worse than profit-oriented exploitation.

Marxism

I was actually wondering what kind of theoretical model he's referring to that would be implemented after the Marxist revolution....

 

[Ravi]

our poor are considered rich in other countries

That always makes me laugh. They aren't considered rich here, they're considered poor.

 

[manifold]

our poor are considered rich in other countries

That always makes me laugh. They aren't considered rich here, they're considered poor.

So you think poverty is funny? Sad.

 

[Ravi]

So you think poverty is funny? Sad.

No, but you're definitely making me laugh.

 

[manifold]

No, but you're definitely making me laugh.

Then don't be a Shogun, dole out some rep points already!

 

[Ravi]

Then don't be a Shogun, dole out some rep points already!

I tried awhile ago, but I've got to spread some around again.

 

[manifold]

I tried awhile ago, but I've got to spread some around again.

Throw a charity rep doeton's way. She could use'm and I think she's a big fan of welfare anyway.