Ego: From my encounters with leftists of all flavors, both in real life and on message boards like this one, any and everyone who described his/herself as "socialist" or "democratic socialist", etc. wanted to make it mandatory. I have met capitalists who love the idea of living in communes, but those people describe themselves as capitalists.Describing yourself as "socialist" is silly when you're actually a capitalist. Like I mentioned in my previous post, should I describe my political philosophy in terms of who I want to spend my own money?
From my encounters with leftists of all flavors, both in real life and on message boards like this one, any and everyone who described his/herself as "socialist" or "democratic socialist", etc. wanted to make it mandatory. I have met capitalists who love the idea of living in communes, but those people describe themselves as capitalists.Describing yourself as "socialist" is silly when you're actually a capitalist. Like I mentioned in my previous post, should I describe my political philosophy in terms of who I want to spend my own money?
You're conflating voluntary socialists with state socialists, and at the same time conflating free-market ideas with capitalism. A "true" capitalist is only one component of free-marketers, and a voluntary socialist is another, completely different component of the same broad category. The free market is the sum of all voluntary human interaction. It can include both non-state capitalism and non-state socialism in harmonious parallel, but not both in exactly the same place at exacly the same time according to physical law.
Of these socialists that you've met, who do they vote for?
One is voting for Ron Paul; one for Mike Gravel; the rest (by far the majority) refuse to vote for anyone.
Pro Christo et Libertate integre!
Ego: IrishOutlaw: I can get along with pretty much anyone that doesn't have a gun to my head. I know I share some common views with socialists. But the problem is in the definition of who is a socialist. A true socialist is working on a system that they believe will bring down the government and bring about communism. I see the differences as more of a moral question and not so much a difference in the sovereignty of the individual. A good example is an analogy a socialist friend of mine brought up. Two men are walking through a desert and one of them has a hole in his canteen that he doesn't know about. When he asks the other man for a drink he is told "No." Although I think it would be in his best interest to share the water, I don't feel he has a moral obligation too. I don't think that is an act of aggression. The socialist on the other hand feels that the man with water has a monopoly on a needed resource and that refusing to give the first man a drink IS an act of aggression. Both of us can see the validity of the others argument up to this point. Where we will always bump heads is on what the waterless man can do to get water. You don't beleive the capitalism vs socialism debate is about the sovereignty of the individual? Really? A system that will allow the masses to take your money isn't a violation of the sovereignty of the individual?
IrishOutlaw: I can get along with pretty much anyone that doesn't have a gun to my head. I know I share some common views with socialists. But the problem is in the definition of who is a socialist. A true socialist is working on a system that they believe will bring down the government and bring about communism. I see the differences as more of a moral question and not so much a difference in the sovereignty of the individual. A good example is an analogy a socialist friend of mine brought up. Two men are walking through a desert and one of them has a hole in his canteen that he doesn't know about. When he asks the other man for a drink he is told "No." Although I think it would be in his best interest to share the water, I don't feel he has a moral obligation too. I don't think that is an act of aggression. The socialist on the other hand feels that the man with water has a monopoly on a needed resource and that refusing to give the first man a drink IS an act of aggression. Both of us can see the validity of the others argument up to this point. Where we will always bump heads is on what the waterless man can do to get water.
I can get along with pretty much anyone that doesn't have a gun to my head. I know I share some common views with socialists. But the problem is in the definition of who is a socialist. A true socialist is working on a system that they believe will bring down the government and bring about communism. I see the differences as more of a moral question and not so much a difference in the sovereignty of the individual. A good example is an analogy a socialist friend of mine brought up.
Two men are walking through a desert and one of them has a hole in his canteen that he doesn't know about. When he asks the other man for a drink he is told "No." Although I think it would be in his best interest to share the water, I don't feel he has a moral obligation too. I don't think that is an act of aggression. The socialist on the other hand feels that the man with water has a monopoly on a needed resource and that refusing to give the first man a drink IS an act of aggression.
Both of us can see the validity of the others argument up to this point. Where we will always bump heads is on what the waterless man can do to get water.
You don't beleive the capitalism vs socialism debate is about the sovereignty of the individual? Really? A system that will allow the masses to take your money isn't a violation of the sovereignty of the individual?
No I don't, because neither one of those things are individual for one thing. I guess you need to give me your definition of capitalism and socialism though, so I can try and understand what you are saying. What you are calling socialism, I call democracy, in which case I am definately opposed.
I completely agree that it all boils down to that; socialists believe in forcing, capitalists believe in asking.
Don't allow leftists to play games with definitions! Some of the libertarian-leaning leftists at this forum will try to redefine "left-wing" back to its original defition (Third Estate, limited government, free-markets, laissez-faire reforms, etc.). Fine! We non-leftists can't stop them from using their own personal definitions; they can use whatever labels they want to describe any concept they want.However, they have the audacity to then use their personal definition of "left-wing" (remember, the original definition, which is no longer valid) to prove that modern leftists are more libertarian than modern rightists! They will say that libertarianism is "inherently leftist" (again, using the original, no longer valid definition), and use that to insist that we should prefer and side with modern leftists over modern rightists.
Question their motives.
Once again, you're using a blanket definition of socialism (as a political system imposed by a state) that stifles any productivity to this discussion. Are you aware that not all self-described socialists are statists? Are you aware that many 19th century individualist anarchists were self-described socialists? Or that alternative modes of organization are possible voluntary buisiness and community models in a free market? The matter isn't as cut and dry as "the capitalists" vs. "the socialists". Throughout the whole ordeal, you've yet to really define your terms. What precisely is "socialism"?
I'm not going to play this definition-game, sorry.
If you are talking about allying with capitalists who want to practice "socialism" in their own lives, of course that's a good thing! If you are talking about allying with socialists who want to force others to practice socialism, that's a bad thing.
We can't agree on defitions, but can we agree with the above statement?
Not neccessarily. "Socialism" is a concept that covers both state socialism and voluntary socialism. "Capitalism" includes both state capitalism (or "predatory capitalism") and free-market capitalism. Using either or both of the superior terms to denote their opposing inferior sub-terms is incorrect. Socialism was a voluntary system, in theory, long before Marx came along. And if there are socialists who wish to use the original, non-enslaving definition, I won't object.
The above statement still requires a definition of terms. As far as I can tell, the terms capitalism and socialism are being used as anti-concepts or floating abstractions in much of the discussion. There is no talk about the actual content or ideas in question. Just the use of the labels and the establishment of a dichotomy between them. But what's the point of that when the debate then goes on without a referance point to what one is really talking about? It seems a bit too simplistic to just conclude, "we are capitalists, socialism is the opposite of capitalism, therefore socialism is bad".
We're talking about allying with socialists. You want to use a different meaning of "socialist" than the modern meaning (one where the state plays a large role in the economy). "Socialist" isn't perfectly defined, and there are plenty of different hyphenated-socialists, but that really doesn't matter.
For whatever reason, you want to give socialists a strange benefit of the doubt -- that they (or at least a large number of them) simply want to practice "socialism" in their own lives (live in communes, etc.), and that socialists are actually for cutting taxes, cutting regulations and price controls, and cutting social-welfare programs.
Well, it's impossible to win a definition war, so I'll simply say this: Sure, we should ally with the "socialists" who want to cut taxes, cut regulations, and cut price controls. We should not ally with the socialists who want to raise taxes, increase regulations, and increase price controls.
Brainpolice: The above statement still requires a definition of terms. As far as I can tell, the terms capitalism and socialism are being used as anti-concepts or floating abstractions in much of the discussion. There is no talk about the actual content or ideas in question. Just the use of the labels and the establishment of a dichotomy between them. But what's the point of that when the debate then goes on without a referance point to what one is really talking about? It seems a bit too simplistic to just conclude, "we are capitalists, socialism is the opposite of capitalism, therefore socialism is bad".
Here, I made a venn diagram.
Ego: We're talking about allying with socialists. You want to use a different meaning of "socialist" than the modern meaning (one where the state plays a large role in the economy). "Socialist" isn't perfectly defined, and there are plenty of different hyphenated-socialists, but that really doesn't matter. For whatever reason, you want to give socialists a strange benefit of the doubt -- that they (or at least a large number of them) simply want to practice "socialism" in their own lives (live in communes, etc.), and that socialists are actually for cutting taxes, cutting regulations and price controls, and cutting social-welfare programs. Well, it's impossible to win a definition war, so I'll simply say this: Sure, we should ally with the "socialists" who want to cut taxes, cut regulations, and cut price controls. We should not ally with the socialists who want to raise taxes, increase regulations, and increase price controls.
The problem is that you keep lumping all of them into the same category, which obscures the diversity and subtleties within the broader socialist phenomenon. Even in modern times, not all self-proclaimed socialists hold the same views, and some are comparatively very different than eachother.
I do not give the benefit of the doubt to very many socialists. I'm mostly restricting my open door or tent to Tuckerites and Proudhonists. In general, I'm talking about a rather minority within the socialist movement who truly are libertarians or voluntaryists. The main disagreement between someone like myself and a Tuckerite would seem to not be a matter of whether or not we support a free economy, but what we think that the results of a free economy would be and possibly somewhat over what modes of organization we would prefer within a free market. A Tuckerite would think that interest would dissapear and be a bit more labor oriented. Nonetheless, they are still full-fledged libertarians.
MacFall: Brainpolice: The above statement still requires a definition of terms. As far as I can tell, the terms capitalism and socialism are being used as anti-concepts or floating abstractions in much of the discussion. There is no talk about the actual content or ideas in question. Just the use of the labels and the establishment of a dichotomy between them. But what's the point of that when the debate then goes on without a referance point to what one is really talking about? It seems a bit too simplistic to just conclude, "we are capitalists, socialism is the opposite of capitalism, therefore socialism is bad". Here, I made a venn diagram.
Thanks. That definitely is a more sober look at the political spectrum then both the typical left-right spectrum and the nolan chart.
P.S. I was making that response to ego, not you.
It's real simple folks:
Socialism - public (i.e., government) ownership of the means of production
Capitalism - private ownership of the means of production
Communism - collective ownership of the means of production
No such thing as a voluntary socialist, because an opt-out clause means the government's Ponzi scheme collapses. Communist collectives have been successful, but only in the form of families and religious orders, and Marxists hate both institutions.
Also, how can you ally with a school of economic thought that believes in the labor theory of value? Capitalism and socialism are antithetical from their most basic premises forward.
Brainpolice: Thanks. That definitely is a more sober look at the political spectrum then both the typical left-right spectrum and the nolan chart. P.S. I was making that response to ego, not you.
Yeah, I figured, but I thought it might help. I just noticed something else - this is similar to the World's Smallest Political Quiz in its 2-axis nature, but different in the principles represented. In my diagram the horizontal axis represents exclusivelyethical/political beliefs, and the vertical axis represents economic understanding (collective/non-market vs. propertarian/market oriented theory).
What's the difference between a free-market capitalist and a voluntary non-state socialist?
Well, since we are talking about agorism, I don't know why they would ally with anyone that was about cutting taxes in the first place. There is a rejection of political activism in agorism. I don't know about everyone else, but to me there is little difference between the political socialist and the political minarchist.
Isn't the real problem that most "voluntaist socialist" don't actually believe in absolute property rights? The mutualists I've talked to still think that the workers have a right to the entrepreneur's profit, but that they of course are free to "hand it over" in order to live capitalistically.That means a worker has the right to go demand a share of the profit, should he be mad at the boss one day, or something like that.
Another problem is the positive rights.
What happens when the socialists lose everything because of their bad economical system? Will they claim to have a right "not to starve" and start plundering the capitalist systems?
The only way I can see anarchism without adjectives working, is with absolute property rights. Different anarchist systems can exist without it, but them living in peace cannot. And getting the mutualists to agree that the worker has sold his labour and therefor cannot claim ownership over it isn't the easiest thing in the world...
This definition has self-contradictary elements. Public and government ownership are not the same thing. Not all socialists support government ownership of the means of production, and quite sensibly see it as being opposed and contradictary to public ownership. Since the state, afterall, is clearly not "the public" or "the people". It is always oligarchic in some sense.
Which could theoretically include a voluntary buisinesses run by private workers.
Which could theorectically constitute a voluntary private collective.
Of course there is such thing as a voluntary socialist, because not all of socialism supports government. It would be disingenous to lump the entirely of social anarchism in with state-socialism, just as it would be to lump propnonets of laissez-faire in with economic fascists or corporatists.
Not all labor theories of value are the same, nor do all socialists draw the same political conclusions from an LTV. Not all proponents of an LTV believe that the government should intervene in the economy. Some think that the conditions of a free market would naturally reflect an LTV. In this they may be wrong, but I don't see how they can necessarily be considered anti-thetical enemies of economic freedom.
Economic theory; that's all. A free-market capitalist believes that profits and interest are both inevitable and necessary for trade to function. A libertarian socialist believes that profits and interest are perversions of an exchange system brought on by the state. Where state and non-state socialists differ is that the former believe that those "perversions" will go away after the state does, and would not advocate forcing people out of systems that yield profit.
I think that those people will be badly disappointed when the world finally finds out what a real free-market looks like, but since its a difference in economic theory and not in ethics or morals, I will still call them my allies against the state.
Ego: What's the difference between a free-market capitalist and a voluntary non-state socialist?
In my opinion, personal preferance for how to organize in a free society. Or alternatively, what tendencies one thinks would inevitably ensue in a free society. That's the difference.
Eli: Isn't the real problem that most "voluntaist socialist" don't actually believe in absolute property rights? The mutualists I've talked to still think that the workers have a right to the entrepreneur's profit, but that they of course are free to "hand it over" in order to live capitalistically.That means a worker has the right to go demand a share of the profit, should he be mad at the boss one day, or something like that. Another problem is the positive rights. What happens when the socialists lose everything because of their bad economical system? Will they claim to have a right "not to starve" and start plundering the capitalist systems? The only way I can see anarchism without adjectives working, is with absolute property rights. Different anarchist systems can exist without it, but them living in peace cannot. And getting the mutualists to agree that the worker has sold his labour and therefor cannot claim ownership over it isn't the easiest thing in the world...
I would solve that semantical problem by calling socialists who would use force to prevent free exchange "statists", whether they think they are anarchists or not.
As for the hypothetical situation after the state is gone - there will be criminals. Some of them will be people with juvenile time-preferences who don't give a damn about anyone's property rights but their own; others will be disgruntled socialists/syndicalists/communitarians who don't believe in property rights in the first place. But not all of the people in either of those categories will neccessarily act criminally.
Ludwig von Mises Institute | 518 West Magnolia Avenue | Auburn, Alabama 36832-4528
Phone: 334.321.2100 · Fax: 334.321.2119
contact@Mises.org | webmaster | AOL-IM MainMises
Mises.org sitemap