> common-sense appeal that practically bridges the gap between "is" and "ought."
That intrigues me, because if there's one thing that is particularly tiresome about Socialists it's that they invoke Hegel to rationalize everything they want and propose.
“Socialism, like the ancient ideas from which it springs, confuses the distinction between government and society. As a result of this, every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all. We disapprove of state education. Then the socialists say that we are opposed to any education. We object to a state religion. Then the socialists say that we want no religion at all. We object to a state-enforced equality. Then they say that we are against equality. And so on, and so on. It is as if the socialists were to accuse us of not wanting persons to eat because we do not want the state to raise grain.”
-- Frédéric Bastiat, The Law
The problem in the US isn't capitalism, it's that the government interferes extensively in the economy. It is rational, if not moral, for the wealthy to expend effort and resources to gain political power rather than spending the same effort and resources on providing goods and services.
Building a society is the responsibility of each individual who values it. Using government force in pursuit of that goal leads only to the co-option and disenfranchisement Simon complains about.
>Should we be socialists or capitalists? Is one system better than the other? What does it mean for an economic system to be "better" than another anyway? On the basis of philosophical arguments regarding these questions, people have been inspired to violently murder those who they see as perpetuating injustice. Surely, then, these arguments are not just "abstract" and "without content".
Most socialists viciously reject all association with the kind of nonmaterialist, non-scientific, ahistorical kind of philosophy you're trying to justify here. We use "metaphysics" as an insult and "liberal metaphysics" especially to sneer at our opponents for trying to draw moral justification from a kind of Platonic realm of Forms rather than from the material needs of human beings.
I'm sure you have some thoughts to add in response, but my point is that socialism itself, as usually taught, is not a very good example to make your point with.
> Socialism is the doctrine that man has no right to exist for his own sake, that his life and his work do not belong to him, but belong to society, that the only justification of his existence is his service to society, and that society may dispose of him in any way it pleases for the sake of whatever it deems to be its own tribal, collective good.
Ayn Rand
I am not a follower of hers but on this particular topic I am reminded of her quotes a lot
> Most socialists (and certainly all of the originators and main theorists) would contend that socialism represents a pure qualitative break with capitalism
That's the kind of black and white thinking we need to do away with. "Purity" is fun for theorists to talk about but in practice we basically never want pure systems.
Anyhow, how can capitalism and socialism coexists? Well, it already does! Every democracy which levies taxes to run shared services is partly socialist, since these means of production are jointly owned. You can even see the taxes as a way for the people to extract profits from every venture, for example in Sweden the state spends around 50% of GDP so it already owns 50% of everything even if the papers says otherwise, you can't come and say that something which can extract 50% of all value from something doesn't really own it! And every country where you can start, run and profit from companies are partly capitalist. Hence all western nations are partly socialist and partly capitalist. They are on different parts of this spectrum.
For example, most roads are socialist, you don't have to pay to drive on them even though they cost a lot of money. Very few argue that we need less socialist roads and more capitalist roads with toll booths.
>"liberal socialism" is quite convincing, even though the construct might at first seem like an oxymoron
I don't understand why this is even considered an oxymoron, aside from the arguably distorted views people have about the theory of Socialism. There are plenty of liberal Socialists, Oscar Wilde being a popular one.
There's a presumption here that there's an objective "good" for society, likely as defined by this professor. One of the primary virtues of capitalism is that it makes no such presumption and empowers and frees disparate tribes to pursue their own "good" within the bounds of a constructive construct.
Correspondingly, one of the vices(?) of socialism is the presumption of a single societal good. This of course makes sense when we have non-reproducible/limited resources like the environment or rights that could conflict like the use of force, but for all other resources like how we spend our lives, what we build, where we go, what we enjoy, freedom by definition means a subjective "good".
I always find it curious when postmodernism (skepticism of societal mores) presumes any form of objective truth.
"Since the real purpose of socialism is precisely to overcome and advance beyond the predatory phase of human development"
That assumes that "socialists" are really trying to do this and not simply 1) jealous of those with more and 2) simply trying to replace who's in power - with them at the helm.
Why socialism? 70+ years ago? why not. Today? why not socialism? 100+ years of history of the abject failures on every level of every promise and the hell on earth socialism creates.
For every promise of moving past the "predatory phase of humanity" that socialism makes... it breaks and does so in worse ways than capitalism.
Imperfect capitalism has proven better than imperfect socialism at every level of analysis. IE, from the article:
"Private capital tends to become concentrated in few hands"
Inequality exists with capitalists? Guess what? No socialism structure shows that inequality ends with socialism - the inequality remains.
But... we can watch someone like Bernie talk about how evil capitalism is as he flys between his 3 houses, with all his super cars and buy seats to his shows and all his books. You can read all about it and talk about it on your iPhone at Starbucks drinking a latte.
> Lots of countries burn money on labor and goods they don't need, they just call it "socialism" instead of "defence"
I suppose in your eyes, 'need' is a loaded term. Maslow's hierarchy of needs, while subject to some debate, has become a popular consensus on what the term means. Many socialist policies are in favor of universal health-care, food and housing programs etc. which sit at the foundation of the hierarchy.
I'm aware that socialists don't frame their claims as moral claims. I'm not entirely sure if they're correct to do so, but I'm aware nonetheless.
I'm also aware that some socialists hold views of agency that render the notion of "persuading someone to be a socialist via argumentation" incoherent. Hopefully such debates don't prevent me from using the history of socialist thought as an illustrative example of philosophy that is decidedly not "abstract argumentation without content".
Also, you seem to be unaware of the diversity of thought in contemporary moral realism, if you think that all moral realism is equivalent to Platonism.
I think the proverb I quoted fits the article, and in fact all attempts at implementing socialism. I am happy to discuss why you think it's not appropriate.
>Anyhow, how can capitalism and socialism coexists? Well, it already does!
No (well, "no" from the point of view of scholars of socialism, whose opinion as experts on the topic matters more). Taxes are not "socialist", because "socialism" does not mean a safety net within capitalism. Means of production, as they are spoken of by philosophers, cannot be said to be "jointly owned"[0].
>Sweden the state spends around 50% of GDP so it already owns 50% of everything even if the papers says otherwise, you can't come and say that something which can extract 50% of all value from something doesn't really own it!
These do not count as productive capacity, but as help for workers, even if they were monetary equivalents (quantitatively), they are not qualitatively the same thing. In fact, one of the problems in the theory of exploitation is the question of whether someone who earns a very high income can be said to be "exploited". The compensation, it is held, is not (or less) relevant than the share of productive resources.
>For example, most roads are socialist, you don't have to pay to drive on them even though they cost a lot of money.
Socialism isn't about "fairness" or getting something back from the state[1]. Rather, it's about "class society". I don't mean to argue for or against socialism, but it's important to get the views right. Social safety nets are a social democratic measure within capitalist society. They are "social" but not socialist. Taxes existed in Marx's time (in some cases, higher than what we have now) - nevertheless, Marx called for the establishment of "socialism". Simple redistribution is not the socialist paradigm, except in rare incarnations.
[0] One of the conditions outlined by Roemer, as quoted in SEP: "If S were to withdraw from the society, endowed with its per capita share of society’s alienable property (that is, produced and nonproduced goods), and with its own labor and skills, then S would be better off (in terms of income and leisure) than it is at the present allocation."
[1] "What is "a fair distribution"?
Do not the bourgeois assert that the present-day distribution is "fair"? And is it not, in fact, the only "fair" distribution on the basis of the present-day mode of production? Are economic relations regulated by legal conceptions, or do not, on the contrary, legal relations arise out of economic ones? Have not also the socialist sectarians the most varied notions about "fair" distribution?" (Marx, Critique of the Gotha Program, 1875)
>Socialism says two people do not have the right to come to an agreement on the exchange of property and labor. What is social about that? How is that in harmony with human nature?
No, socialism says focusing on group cooperation optimizes aggregate wealth. Socialism says that somewhere between a completely shared economy and a completely private economy is a sweet spot where you get the best of both worlds.
You're very focused on this "socialism is anti-social" stance, but not only does it not make any intuitive sense, it is not backed up by any data. Show me a modern, prosperous state that absolutely abstains from social programs or promoting collective interest.
The very idea of a state is a threat to (completely) free exchange of property and labor. Most people are willing to buy security from the state in the form of regulations and taxes. We think our food should be safe to eat, so we make rules and add a cost to ensure a baseline. We want advertisements to accurately represent products. As individuals, we have little recourse against an industry which has decided to curtail consumer health in favor of increased profits. The state is simply a mechanism to ensure our collective will is met, not as entities in a capitalist network but as the weird little thinking, walking primates that we are.
I'd have to agree. Here's the thesis of the article:
> The inability of mankind to imagine happiness except in the form of relief, either from effort or pain, presents Socialists with a serious problem. Dickens can describe a poverty-stricken family tucking into a roast goose, and can make them appear happy; on the other hand, the inhabitants of perfect universes seem to have no spontaneous gaiety and are usually somewhat repulsive into the bargain. But clearly we are not aiming at the kind of world Dickens described, nor, probably, at any world he was capable of imagining. The Socialist objective is not a society where everything comes right in the end, because kind old gentlemen give away turkeys. What are we aiming at, if not a society in which ‘charity’ would be unnecessary? We want a world where Scrooge, with his dividends, and Tiny Tim, with his tuberculous leg, would both be unthinkable. But does that mean we are aiming at some painless, effortless Utopia? At the risk of saying something which the editors of Tribune may not endorse, I suggest that the real objective of Socialism is not happiness. Happiness hitherto has been a by-product, and for all we know it may always remain so. The real objective of Socialism is human brotherhood.
In what way did this article allude to anything remotely describable as "socialism"?
Literally the only part of the article that is not 100% directed at the individual reader is "(and others)" in the very last paragraph.
It is mind-boggling to me that parenthetically mentioning the single word "others" is enough to provoke "but that's socialism" responses. And let me be clear that there is a mile-wide gap between "socialism" and "the opposite of pure individualism".
To paraphrase Oscar Wilde, you can judge a man--or a cause--by their enemies. Nothing makes me more interested in embracing socialism than Rush's rush to define socialism as "any action that shows concern for your fellow human."
That intrigues me, because if there's one thing that is particularly tiresome about Socialists it's that they invoke Hegel to rationalize everything they want and propose.
reply