Are there any modern Socialists?

[Undesired Walrus]

I love how creationists are deluded into thinking they are being romantic when denying the 4 billion years of gradual evolution from minute-cells to the mind of Newton.

Galloway: Waste of space.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

"I’m not really prepared to believe that from the bottom-dwelling slugs of the pond came the voice of Pavarotti. I’m not really prepared to believe that Albert Einstein and a spider are really the same thing, that they just took a different evolutionary path.” - George Galloway

Yeah, I just found that. Ye gods, this man was elected into office. He doesn't deserve to participate in the running of a race let alone the country.

 

[a_unique_person]

Comparing it directly might be a bit on the rude side, to be sure.

But it's worth noting that, if socialism slows technological development even just a little bit (say, 10-20%), after a century we'd have, for example, 1980 level technology in the year 2000.

Delta the difference in death rates due to medicine, medical machines, etc., and, well, I'll let you be the judge.

Basically it uses rhetoric to buy votes and please people now, at the cost of people's lives and healthiness down the road.

But the math cannot be avoided. It adds up.

As fast as medical science comes up with cures, junk food marketers come up with fattening, carcinogencic junk. It's a race.

 

[Sefarst]

Perhaps not tyranny, but it's a bit like 'The weak shall go to the wall'!

In a sense, and on the surface of it I suppose it can seem like freedom to decide to fall out of the capitalist system, but it entirely depends on where you were born and what economic system, from no mistake of your own. In a country of capitalist control, there is no way you cannot be given an unequal start in life.

But again, no matter where you were born, can you be expected to be carried by the system and refuse to contribute anything? As in Communism's "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need," what if I refuse to give according to my ability?

Again, I am not an economist, but I'm very much against suffering. In an time of bad housing, crack, heroin and mental ill-health, forcing someone to pull themselves up by their own bootstraps is something I regard as idealistic and in some cases immoral.

I think everyone is against suffering, but I think the biggest mistake a government can make, policy-wise, is to judge a program by its intentions rather than its results. If we were to learn that money given to certain individuals through welfare led to those individuals buying more drugs with that money, presumably what got them into poverty in the first place, should we continue giving them money (and I don't mean to suggest here that all welfare recipients are drug addicts, this is just a hypothetical)? The intent of giving them money is to improve their lives, but the actual result is a decrease in that person's quality of living.

These are the economic problems, that giving people free money often leads to worsening their condition. There is a positive correlation between the length of time and amount of money an individual is offered in unemployment insurance and the amount of time he remains unemployed.

True, but if you had the same car in a parking lot, I'd expect you to move it or lose it if it was particularly large or in the way.

If it was blocking the flow of traffic or on your property, you would have the right to have it moved. However, we're talking about whether or not anyone has the right to take the property of another person and give it to a third person.

 

[christie malry]

These are the economic problems, that giving people free money often leads to worsening their condition.

Ever read 'The Condition of the Working Class in England'? Cos nothing on our worst sink estates compares to the squalor of life exposed to laissez faire capitalism without a welfare state.

 

[Sefarst]

Ever read 'The Condition of the Working Class in England'? Cos nothing on our worst sink estates compares to the squalor of life exposed to laissez faire capitalism without a welfare state.

No, I haven't read it, but it sounds right. Conditions are significantly better today than they use to be. However, is that thanks to the welfare state or to improvements in technology?

 

[Suddenly]

No, I haven't read it, but it sounds right. Conditions are significantly better today than they use to be. However, is that thanks to the welfare state or to improvements in technology?

I think the answer is yes. I don't think you can do an either/or thing here.

Government intitiatives cause advances as much as if not more than the profit motive.

 

[IchabodPlain]

Government intitiatives cause advances as much as if not more than the profit motive.

Hmm, yes but much of that technology comes from indirect places. For instance most American technology developed this century by our government has come through the military (internet) and space programs(solar power), which were not considered to be used by Joe Public when they were invented.

 

[Suddenly]

Hmm, yes but much of that technology comes from indirect places. For instance most American technology developed this century by our government has come through the military (internet) and space programs(solar power), which were not considered to be used by Joe Public when they were invented.

Absolutely. Some comes from funding of universities... even private ones (with a handful of exceptions) benefit from government funding taking the place of grants and subsidized loans to students, let alone direct grants.

The issue being that government can not be assumed to hinder innovation. It does in some circumstances (the FDA needs streamlined), but in others it is essential. The optimal mix is an open question, but we can probably dismiss a purely socialist approach (the market is still a valuable source of information as to best direct resources) as well as a purely libertarian approach as following the market is clearly not an optimal approach.

 

[IchabodPlain]

Absolutely. Some comes from funding of universities... even private ones (with a handful of exceptions) benefit from government funding taking the place of grants and subsidized loans to students, let alone direct grants.

Quite right. I would add to that that there are also loads of private grants, scholarships, and loans for students as well. I mention this because of my personal experience, as it is how I am able to afford school (private grant), and it demonstrates the value placed by businesses and the frequently vilified 'upper class' on education.

The issue being that government can not be assumed to hinder innovation. It does in some circumstances (the FDA needs streamlined), but in others it is essential. The optimal mix is an open question, but we can probably dismiss a purely socialist approach (the market is still a valuable source of information as to best direct resources) as well as a purely libertarian approach as following the market is clearly not an optimal approach.

I agree with this. Socialism has been obsolete in it's pure approach since Von Mises wrote Socialism in 1922 (not that it's stopped some from preaching it's value). Even it's syndicalist approach (which I think is the most workable) remains fatally flawed, in that isn't a flexible form of government. It has no recourse for accounting for the daily changes of people's needs and circumstances.

The libertarian model seems, to me, more principally sound, but yet has a similar problem of changing with the times and advancing with technology. Especially now with things like genetically-altered food, and mass communication.

 

[Sefarst]

Government intitiatives cause advances as much as if not more than the profit motive.

The profit motive might be more properly classified as the self-interest motive here. I think government initiatives are guided by the self-interest motive as much as private ones are. As has been said, government initiatives tend to come out in the form of military achievements (the Apollo program might not have been strictly military, but given the condition of the Cold War, I would argue that the Apollo program was part of the posturing that tied into the Cold War's military goals).

The issue being that government can not be assumed to hinder innovation. It does in some circumstances (the FDA needs streamlined), but in others it is essential. The optimal mix is an open question, but we can probably dismiss a purely socialist approach (the market is still a valuable source of information as to best direct resources) as well as a purely libertarian approach as following the market is clearly not an optimal approach.

You could make an argument that the government is good for achieving things just for the sake of achieving them that might not have a practical or direct financial benefit. At the same time, government interference in scientific endeavors can slow things down, as you said (stem cell research and the political firestorm around it come to mind).

 

[Suddenly]

I think a good way to put it is Louis Black's "Big Freaking Thing" bit about economic stimulus. Instead of giving out checks you pay to have some big freaking thing on the order of mount Rushmore built, then people go to see the big freaking thing and then you have the big freaking thing hotel and so on.

You could do the same thing with technology, more or less. Big projects result in breakthroughs, and free access to this tech plus market forces equals innovations that increase the quality of life.

To be relevant, modern socialism has to accept that market forces exist, just as gravity exists. It a morally neutral part of life. It cannot be denied, but it can be directed, assisted, and controlled within reason. There are some areas where market forces are seen as morally negative, such as with health care to the point where poor are left to die in the streets.

An argument can be made that socialized medicine and other welfare programs help the free market. American history is rife with examples of social unrest and near revolt over the treatment of the less well off. A cornerstone of any efficient free market is stability, and when people are dying in the streets, are barely able to support themselves, they will often question the assumption that the current rule of law is worth following. This leads to a breakdown in stability, a waste of resources spent on security and law enforcement, and so on.

This is also going to be relative. The person rioting in 1905 over work condition was probably better off than a medieval serf in real terms, and those who may riot in 2010 will be better off in real terms than those rioting in 1905.

Libertarians need to grasp this as a fact of life even within a free market paradigm. Declarations that property is sacred, and arguments that redistribution of wealth harms economic growth and in the end harms the worst off in real terms, even if true, aren't of much use when the worst off become disenfranchised, start stealing your cars and shooting people. Even if we take these ideas as true, they aren't going to mean much to someone at the bottom of the pile.

While drastic inequality in the distribution of wealth are no big splinter in an ivory tower Austrian School framework where growth solves all ills, in reality it acts to make free markets less stable and thus reduces efficiency. This is the big elephant in the room that few serious libertarians want to acknowlege, and that failure puts them in the same box as socialists that deny market forces.

Once disillusionment is noted as a danger to a free market just like crime and fraud, the issue is how to most efficiently handle this, and some sort of welfare / public works program seems to fit that bill.

 

[Cain]

Schweickart argues for market socialism, which basically means workplace democracy. When you strip socialism down to its essential meaning it's only asserting the notion that the people should own and control the means of production themselves. So, if you want to look at it in another way, you can say it broadens the capitalist class by making us all capitalists (although that's incoherent, in my view). The crucial difference is that you would elect your bosses -- if you are to have bosses at all -- have a greater say in how the enterprise you work in is run, and share in the profits. It's a model that values individual autonomy because you fashion the institution(s) that affect your life; you have a say.

Now some people, conservatives, so-called "libertarians" might claim that it will not work because we need hierarchy and authoritarianism; we need people giving orders and making threats in order to get things done. Modern day Corporations are still "collectivist" and centrally planned. But There's nothing particularly liberating, empowering, or "individualistic" about corporate culture.

Michael Albert, the other theorist I mentioned, and there's a bit about him in the longer, more comprehensive post that followed mine, proudly calls himself a "market abolitionist."

I also forgot to mention Ursula K. Le Guin's excellent novel The Dispossessed. It compares a sort of anarchist/socialist society (and mentality) against a 60s style, managerial capitalism.

 

[Trakar]

I've read books by Conservatives, Libertarians, and Liberals, but I've never read one arguing for straight-out Socialism. So I decided to look at the library for some books... and they were all really really old. Like the newest one was at least twenty years old. I tried looking at the websites for the third parties here, but they were all jokes.

I know that conservatives are always ranting about how the elite intellectuals are Marxists and all that stuff, but I seriously can't find anyone arguing Socialism.

Is Socialism still around? I know that there are still Socialist parties in other countries, and IIRC the Labour Parties consider themselves as part of a Socialist movement.

But I am really having trouble finding any resources. One that I did find that was interesting explained some things about a vision for socialism, but it was all really vague and even admitted that a specific plan would have to be made later.

I suppose I could read the Communist Manifesto, but I know enough about Socialism to know that I don't like Communism with it's violent revolution; and it is so old I don't know how much of it applies to today's world.

Part of the problem you may be having, is that socialism is generally a broader overarching concept rooted more in economics than politics. Democracy in itself is often considered a political varient of socialism (one man, one vote, equal share of responsibility and reward, etc.,.).

 

[Sefarst]

You could do the same thing with technology, more or less. Big projects result in breakthroughs, and free access to this tech plus market forces equals innovations that increase the quality of life.

But is there a better way to do it than mandatory taxation? Would it be rational to argue that the companies and individuals who are going to shoulder the costs of the project should be the ones to benefit from the breakthroughs in technology?

To be relevant, modern socialism has to accept that market forces exist, just as gravity exists. It a morally neutral part of life. It cannot be denied, but it can be directed, assisted, and controlled within reason. There are some areas where market forces are seen as morally negative, such as with health care to the point where poor are left to die in the streets.

Here's an interesting article on the Libertarian healthcare plan, based on free markets and Medical Savings Accounts:

http://www.suite101.com/article.cfm/libertarian/33883

An argument can be made that socialized medicine and other welfare programs help the free market. American history is rife with examples of social unrest and near revolt over the treatment of the less well off. A cornerstone of any efficient free market is stability, and when people are dying in the streets, are barely able to support themselves, they will often question the assumption that the current rule of law is worth following. This leads to a breakdown in stability, a waste of resources spent on security and law enforcement, and so on.

The thing I never like about this argument is that it boils down to, "well they're going to attack us if we don't give them what we want." It's essentially an argument regarding the tyranny of the majority and how to control the "mob". Nonetheless, there are other alternatives than just letting people die on the streets. And whether lack of welfare leads to social breakdown, the number of poor people actually on welfare is incredibly small.

Libertarians need to grasp this as a fact of life even within a free market paradigm. Declarations that property is sacred, and arguments that redistribution of wealth harms economic growth and in the end harms the worst off in real terms, even if true, aren't of much use when the worst off become disenfranchised, start stealing your cars and shooting people. Even if we take these ideas as true, they aren't going to mean much to someone at the bottom of the pile.

The real problem I think is explaining complicated economic models to people who may not have ever thought them through. The person at the bottom of the pile doesn't understand why he's at the bottom of the pile and he becomes bitter. The first step is to teach people to stop pitying themselves and to stop telling them that they are owed something by anyone else. Naturally, if someone has a genuine disability or handicap that somehow prevents them from working, I'm in favor of having a hold-out system to support them.

While drastic inequality in the distribution of wealth are no big splinter in an ivory tower Austrian School framework where growth solves all ills, in reality it acts to make free markets less stable and thus reduces efficiency. This is the big elephant in the room that few serious libertarians want to acknowlege, and that failure puts them in the same box as socialists that deny market forces.

But again, the problem seems to be the ignorance of the guy at the bottom of the pile. All he sees is that he's poor and other people are rich and thus he assumes that he's getting screwed over. This is something that irritates me to no end when I talk to people about economics who assume that the oil companies making record profits or that tycoons like Bill Gates somehow have an obligation to give their wealth away and that not doing so is immoral. In the end it boils down to a matter of might makes right. There are more non-rich people than there are rich people, so those that are successful and wealthy always have to look out that they aren't drawing greedy stares from the less well-off.

 

[Suddenly]

But is there a better way to do it than mandatory taxation? Would it be rational to argue that the companies and individuals who are going to shoulder the costs of the project should be the ones to benefit from the breakthroughs in technology?

Companies are free to do research all they want on their own dime. I don't see your point.

The thing I never like about this argument is that it boils down to, "well they're going to attack us if we don't give them what we want." It's essentially an argument regarding the tyranny of the majority and how to control the "mob".

This is the attitude I'm talking about w/r/t libertarians being like socialists.

A socialist can whine all day about the injustice of market forces and so on, that if people understood the inherent exploitation that would change their ways yadda yadda.

A libertarian can whine about people not caring to be at the bottom of the heap, that if they really understood the wonder of the free market... Which is silly. People don't like to be suckers, and the exploited aren't going to care about abstract notions of property rights.

Both resort to moral arguments to try to wish away a reality of life adverse to their respective philosophies. Simple as that.

The real problem I think is explaining complicated economic models to people who may not have ever thought them through. The person at the bottom of the pile doesn't understand why he's at the bottom of the pile and he becomes bitter. The first step is to teach people to stop pitying themselves and to stop telling them that they are owed something by anyone else. Naturally, if someone has a genuine disability or handicap that somehow prevents them from working, I'm in favor of having a hold-out system to support them.

So... what do the rich think they are owed? Why should the poor play by rules set up by the rich to "protect property" when these people have none to speak of? Morality? What?

Equating it to self-pity is a pretty out there ivory tower attitude, and is completely disconnected from reality.

Most people work hard. In return they want a decent life. Heath care that does not break them, a decent education for their kids. A safe working enviroment where they are treated as human beings and not easily replacable cogs. Not to live in constant fear of the axe, to not get screwed over by the legal system. To not have their pensions torpedoed by some guy making more on that deal than they make in a lifetime.

A libertarian can not get around this any more than a socialist can get around market forces

 

[RandFan]

Most people work hard. In return they want a decent life. Heath care that does not break them, a decent education for their kids. A safe working enviroment where they are treated as human beings and not easily replacable cogs. Not to live in constant fear of the axe, to not get screwed over by the legal system. To not have their pensions torpedoed by some guy making more on that deal than they make in a lifetime.

A libertarian can not get around this any more than a socialist can get around market forces

Good post.

To add to the "market forces" meme. I would add that some people want more. They want to work hard and be rewarded for their efforts. Some would rather work a second job than spend the evening at home. Some are willing to take risks if there is a potential for return. They are willing to save every extra dime until they have enough for a small business that they will slave in day and night because it is theirs and it enlarges society more than simply working a job and it is the potential for financial security and freedom.

Humans are not monolithic. Most of us won't be entrepreneurs, designers, inventors, tinkerers, etc. but there are those of us with talents and capabilities that need some spark to turn potential into reality.

Innovation does not usually come from three hot meals and a roof over one's head and a safe working environment.

Reconcile Marx, Rand and Orwell and we just might have something.

 

[Kotatsu]

But it's worth noting that, if socialism slows technological development even just a little bit (say, 10-20%), after a century we'd have, for example, 1980 level technology in the year 2000.

Well, if brass bands, drinking tea, having a 24-hour day, or wearing wigs slows technical development by 10-20%, the decrease in technology level at a given future date would be the same. Maybe having dogs have already slowed our technical development by 10% ever since they were domesticated? If there is a way to measure that, then maybe we should eradicate dogs... The maths cannot be avoided.

I don't see the point of your argument. My country has been at least nominally socialistic for most of the 20th century, yet Sweden is not 20 years behind other westerns countries when it comes to technology level.

 

[Suddenly]

Good post.

To add to the "market forces" meme. I would add that some people want more. They want to work hard and be rewarded for their efforts. Some would rather work a second job than spend the evening at home. Some are willing to take risks if there is a potential for return. They are willing to save every extra dime until they have enough for a small business that they will slave in day and night because it is theirs and it enlarges society more than simply working a job and it is the potential for financial security and freedom.

Humans are not monolithic. Most of us won't be entrepreneurs, designers, inventors, tinkerers, etc. but there are those of us with talents and capabilities that need some spark to turn potential into reality.

Innovation does not usually come from three hot meals and a roof over one's head and a safe working environment.

Reconcile Marx, Rand and Orwell and we just might have something.

Some people are simply unable to do what you suggest. The promise of advancement is simply irrelevant.

However, I don't think socialism is incompatable with encouraging people to do as you suggest. A system that helps lower barriers to entry into a market, that protects the mom and pop concern against multi-national corporations, and so on. Having universal healthcare would encourage more of this activity, as it is a major problem for people of modest means wanting to start a business.

The desire to advance oneself is probably something else intrinsic to human nature that must be recognized, on par with market forces, and disenfranchisement.

 

[Sefarst]

Companies are free to do research all they want on their own dime. I don't see your point.

But companies and rich individuals would be the ones footing the bill for the government projects you were mentioning. But, as you said, everyone would benefit from it, not just those who paid for it.

This is the attitude I'm talking about w/r/t libertarians being like socialists.

A socialist can whine all day about the injustice of market forces and so on, that if people understood the inherent exploitation that would change their ways yadda yadda.

A libertarian can whine about people not caring to be at the bottom of the heap, that if they really understood the wonder of the free market... Which is silly. People don't like to be suckers, and the exploited aren't going to care about abstract notions of property rights.

I think everyone cares about property rights when it applies to their own rights. People abide by Libertarian principals on the small-scale, within their homes and among their social circles. All people, from the rich to the poor, are going to be resentful if you try to take something away from them that they feel they own.

On the same scales, there are socialist leanings in people as well. All parents give their children things without expecting the child to do anything in return. Neighbors do each other favors and so on. I think the difference the Libertarian would make though is that you willingly choose to engage in those forms of charity, to your children and your friends, family and neighbors.

Both resort to moral arguments to try to wish away a reality of life adverse to their respective philosophies. Simple as that.

Probably, but again I think that would change if the Libertarians ever actually managed to take power in this country. They would quickly have to start forming compromises and deals. Most political ideas begin with "pure" principals that later, when put into practice, have to be ammended.

So... what do the rich think they are owed? Why should the poor play by rules set up by the rich to "protect property" when these people have none to speak of? Morality? What?

The poor try to protect their own property just as much as the rich, perhaps even more so. The poor have a huge incentive to guard any property they may acquire.

Equating it to self-pity is a pretty out there ivory tower attitude, and is completely disconnected from reality.

You might think so, but I don't. I don't think it's ivory tower either. Self-pity will naturally arise when individuals feel like they've been screwed over. In the same vein you've been talking in, there are people who feel like they've been exploited and that, as you explain in a moment, people feel they "deserve" certain things.

Most people work hard. In return they want a decent life. Heath care that does not break them, a decent education for their kids. A safe working enviroment where they are treated as human beings and not easily replacable cogs. Not to live in constant fear of the axe, to not get screwed over by the legal system. To not have their pensions torpedoed by some guy making more on that deal than they make in a lifetime.

A libertarian can not get around this any more than a socialist can get around market forces

I'm sure that is what most people want. The real question is whether or not the government stepping in is the best way to accomplish those goals. A safe work environment increases productivity of workers and people having no fear of being fired reduces the quality of their work. On those grounds, businesses have an incentive to provide those services. The Libertarians have also put forward free market ideas to solve problems of healthcare. I don't think they are ignoring these issues.