A New and Better Understanding of Socialism

[nazz]

Perhaps not so new but new to me.

Generally speaking socialism is usually contrasted with capitalism, that is to say it is defined primarily as an economic philosophy. While there is some truth to this it is not how or why the word was originally coined. When the term socialism came into use it was really being contrasted with individualism and not really in reference to a particular economic philosophy per se. The term that is most closely associated with an individualist political philosophy today is libertarianism. What is odd about that is that the term libertarian was first used by some socialists in self reference to themselves and this use persists today outside of the United States.

We can define libertarianism like this: A philosophy which holds that the rights of the individual are more important than the general welfare of a society as a whole.

In contrast we could define socialism as the reverse of that: A philosophy which holds that general welfare of a society as a whole is more important than the rights of the individual.

In a purely libertarian system the rights of the individual are unlimited and unrestricted other than when they conflict with the rights of other individuals (often expressed as "my rights end where yours begin"). If the protection and exercise of these rights results in negative social conditions these are accepted as unfortunate but necessary. While some libertarians are anarchists others see a need for a state whose only function is the protection of individual liberties (minarchism). Libertarianism in the economic sphere basically means laissez-faire capitalism. This is the basic position of the Libertarian Party in the USA.

In contrast to this in a purely socialistic society the rights of individuals are limited and restricted on the basis of how they affect the general welfare of a society taken as a whole. That is to say there are no inherent individual rights but individuals may be granted such rights as long as they are not seen as detrimental to the society. In the economic sphere this means that individuals cannot do whatever they please. They are not permitted to engage in economic activities that in any way harm their society.

When socialism is viewed in this way it is easier to understand how something like National Socialism, or more generally speaking fascism, can be viewed as truly socialistic. In a fascist society the rights of individuals are secondary to the welfare of the society as embodied in the State. The well being of the State as a whole becomes paramount. Capitalism was allowed and tolerated only as far as it served the interests of the State.

In totalitarian Marxists states we see a similar trend even if the stated goals and strategies are different. For Marxists the goal is the emancipation of the working class (seen as constituting the "society as a whole"). The State is a necessary evil used to accomplish that goal. Individual political and economic rights are suppressed in the effort to achieve that goal. The welfare of society--the working class as a whole--becomes paramount.

Where am I going with all of this? I have in the past defined myself as a libertarian socialist. Based on what I have written above that might seem as oxymoronic as a square circle. More recently I've been using the term "left libertarian", a term which may also be somewhat problematic. Right now I am thinking the term "social libertarian" might be the most appropriate. With each of these self-designations what I am really trying to express is my belief that neither a purely libertarian and a purely socialistic society is the ideal but rather that some balance between the two is the best. A purely libertarian system results in social inequalities and economic disparities I find unacceptable. A purely socialistic system results in unacceptable curtailment of civil and economic liberties. But if push comes to shove I am going to err on the side of the protection of individual rights so it makes sense that I use a term that modifies "libertarian" rather than vice versa. "Social libertarian" seems to fit that bill and also stresses that my main focus is on individual rights in the social rather than economic sphere. I favor a more socialistic approach when it comes to economics. And social libertarian can also be contrasted with "anti-social libertarian" which I think would be a good descriptor for the positions of the Libertarian Party in the USA.

 

[Sunstone]

I think your definitions of socialism and liberalism both lack much basis in reality.

 

[Laika]

The antagonism between individual rights and collective rights is a major problem for socialism, but they are not- nor were ever supposed to be mutually exclusive. Socialism was supposed to make society free from poverty, and therefore the individual more free to realize their individuality. It was supposed to be collective rights first (so everyone is economically secure) then individual rights.
Socialism is a by-product of liberalism, as liberalism proclaimed Liberty and Equality (individual rights came first, collective rights second under liberalism); but in the 19th century, industrialization did not produce equal societies, but ones riddled with class conflict. Our still have class conflict, but because the middle class, they are softened somewhat and less visible.
Marxism is almost a different animal entirely because it's conception of the state is derived from Hegel who considered the state the realization of the 'absolute idea' and therefore as the embodiment of man's moral power. Marxists-like anarchists- want a stateless society, but retain the state as a way to resolve class conflict in the proletariat/workers favor.

Fascism and Communism are comparable in terms of expansion of government, but they are also fundamentally different motivations behind them. Fascism remained capitalist and the expansion of state power really only helped corporations become more powerful, whereas Communism did away with corporations entirely and let the state run as much as it could handle.

 

[nazz]

I think your definitions of socialism and liberalism both lack much basis in reality.

Could you be more specific? Also I never defined "liberalism".

 

[nazz]

The antagonism between individual rights and collective rights is a major problem for socialism, but they are not- nor were ever supposed to be mutually exclusive. Socialism was supposed to make society free from poverty, and therefore the individual more free to realize their individuality. It was supposed to be collective rights first (so everyone is economically secure) then individual rights.
Socialism is a by-product of liberalism, as liberalism proclaimed Liberty and Equality (individual rights came first, collective rights second under liberalism); but in the 19th century, industrialization did not produce equal societies, but ones riddled with class conflict. Our still have class conflict, but because the middle class, they are softened somewhat and less visible.
Marxism is almost a different animal entirely because it's conception of the state is derived from Hegel who considered the state the realization of the 'absolute idea' and therefore as the embodiment of man's moral power. Marxists-like anarchists- want a stateless society, but retain the state as a way to resolve class conflict in the proletariat/workers favor.

Fascism and Communism are comparable in terms of expansion of government, but they are also fundamentally different motivations behind them. Fascism remained capitalist and the expansion of state power really only helped corporations become more powerful, whereas Communism did away with corporations entirely and let the state run as much as it could handle.

I agree with some things you said but disagree with others. Socialism did not grow out of liberalism; it arose as a reaction to liberalism which championed laissez-faire capitalism. Socialism did not oppose individual liberties; it simply de-emphasized them as less important than the greater good of society. But the reality is that in socialist nations people have had very little personal freedom. And as I explained capitalism was tolerated in fascist states because it was made to serve the interests of the state.

 

[Sunstone]

Could you be more specific? Also I never defined "liberalism".

You're right. I misread you and you did not actually define liberalism, but rather libertarianism:

We can define libertarianism like this: A philosophy which holds that the rights of the individual are more important than the general welfare of a society as a whole.

In contrast we could define socialism as the reverse of that: A philosophy which holds that general welfare of a society as a whole is more important than the rights of the individual.

I think you're definition of socialism owes more to critics of socialism than it does to socialists. It's kind of like taking the word of a Ford salesman to inform you about a Toyota car. I think it's, to put it mildly, a naive view of socialism.

There are many kinds of socialism, but socialism as I personally endorse it takes a moderate view on the conflict between society's and individual's rights. That is, unlike libertarianism, it does not take an extremist view favoring one or the other, but seeks a balance between the two.

 

[nazz]

I think you're definition of socialism owes more to critics of socialism than it does to socialists. It's kind of like taking the word of a Ford salesman to inform you about a Toyota car. I think it's, to put it mildly, a naive view of socialism.

There's no naivety on my part. I used to make that exact same argument you are making. But I have come to re-evaluate that. I now think the critics are more right than wrong.

There are many kinds of socialism, but socialism as I personally endorse it takes a moderate view on the conflict between society's and individual's rights. That is, unlike libertarianism, it does not take an extremist view favoring one or the other, but seeks a balance between the two.

Well that is more of how I am describing my own view. I am just saying that is not pure socialism.

 

[Sunstone]

There's no naivety on my part. I used to make that exact same argument you are making. But I have come to re-evaluate that. I now think the critics are more right than wrong.


Well that is more of how I am describing my own view. I am just saying that is not pure socialism.

There are about two dozen forms of socialism, last I looked. The notion that some are purer than others is whimsical at best.

 

[nazz]

There are about two dozen forms of socialism, last I looked. The notion that some are purer than others is whimsical at best.

Well you seem to agree there is something like pure libertarianism so why does the reverse not hold true?

That is, unlike libertarianism, it does not take an extremist view favoring one or the other, but seeks a balance between the two.

 

[Sunstone]

Well you seem to agree there is something like pure libertarianism so why does the reverse not hold true?

How so? I don't recall saying that I believed there was something like pure libertarianism. Could you quote where I said there was?

 

[nazz]

How so? I don't recall saying that I believed there was something like pure libertarianism. Could you quote where I said there was?

The way you characterized libertarianism is the way I defined it in my OP. That would be pure libertarianism ("pure" being my modifier, not yours). You don't seem to believe libertarians could have more moderate views that would include some allowance for social concerns. I am saying "pure socialism" is the reverse, as I stated in my OP: A philosophy which holds that general welfare of a society as a whole is more important than the rights of the individual. By that definition a socialist stance with includes concerns for the protection of individual liberty would not be "pure". It's a mixture of the two philosophies which are opposed to one another in their pure forms.

 

[Laika]

I agree with some things you said but disagree with others. Socialism did not grow out of liberalism; it arose as a reaction to liberalism which championed laissez-faire capitalism. Socialism did not oppose individual liberties; it simply de-emphasized them as less important than the greater good of society. But the reality is that in socialist nations people have had very little personal freedom. And as I explained capitalism was tolerated in fascist states because it was made to serve the interests of the state.

Most of the disagreements between socialism and liberalism are fairly deep-rooted in philosophical conflicts. I would argue, in line with Marxism, that the economic system (the base) determines the nature of the political system (the superstructure). In having a capitalist economy, fascism as a political system is therefore subordinated to the capitalist class, since it cannot operate without the resources of the capitalists who own private property- especially when it comes to waging wars. The state serves the economic system, not the other way round.

By "Socialist nations" I assume you are referring to nominally Communist countries and probably Fascist ones too. There is European Social Democracy which has a consistently good economic and human rights record, and incorporates many of the elements of 'socialism' through free healthcare, education and the provision of social security. However, in the strict Marxist sense, they remain 'capitalist' because they are mixed economies.

 

[Tarheeler]

We can define libertarianism like this: A philosophy which holds that the rights of the individual are more important than the general welfare of a society as a whole.

In contrast we could define socialism as the reverse of that:A philosophy which holds that general welfare of a society as a whole is more important than the rights of the individual.

These definitions, and many of the ideas presented in your post, focus on only a very small spectrum within both ideologies. While looking at individual schools within the larger philosophies is fine, trying to shoehorn the entire philosophy into such a small definition is not.

 

[nazz]

Most of the disagreements between socialism and liberalism are fairly deep-rooted in philosophical conflicts. I would argue, in line with Marxism, that the economic system (the base) determines the nature of the political system (the superstructure). In having a capitalist economy, fascism as a political system is therefore subordinated to the capitalist class, since it cannot operate without the resources of the capitalists who own private property- especially when it comes to waging wars. The state serves the economic system, not the other way round.

Certainly capitalists benefited greatly under fascist regimes. But the state did not exist to serve them; rather it used them to further its own interests. Everything in a fascist system revolves around serving the state. Let's remember that the full name of the Nazi party was the National Socialist German Worker's Party and that before turning to fascism Mussolini identified as a socialist. You may want to read this:

Fascism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

just one quote:

Fascist economics supported a state-controlled economy that accepted a mix of private and public ownership over the means of production. Economic planning was applied to both the public and private sector, and the prosperity of private enterprise depended on its acceptance of synchronizing itself with the economic goals of the state. Fascist economic ideology supported the profit motive, but emphasized that industries must uphold the national interest as superior to private profit.

By "Socialist nations" I assume you are referring to nominally Communist countries and probably Fascist ones too. There is European Social Democracy which has a consistently good economic and human rights record, and incorporates many of the elements of 'socialism' through free healthcare, education and the provision of social security. However, in the strict Marxist sense, they remain 'capitalist' because they are mixed economies.

Yes, and according to how I am defining things they are a mixture of libertarian and socialist ideas. Look I am not making this stuff up:

Socialism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The term "socialism" was created to contrast against the liberal doctrine of "individualism", which stressed that people act or should act as if they are in isolation from one another. The original socialists condemned liberal individualism as failing to address social concerns of poverty, social oppression, and gross inequality of wealth. They viewed liberal individualism as degenerating society into supporting selfish egoism that harmed community life through promoting a society based on competition. They presented socialism as an alternative to liberal individualism, that advocated a society based on cooperation.

 

[nazz]

These definitions, and many of the ideas presented in your post, focus on only a very small spectrum within both ideologies. While looking at individual schools within the larger philosophies is fine, trying to shoehorn the entire philosophy into such a small definition is not.

actually what I am providing is an overall definition of general principles

 

[Tarheeler]

actually what I am providing is an overall definition of general principles

No, you're not.

What you've written is extremely narrow in scope, and only touches on very specific examples of both libertarianism and socialism.

 

[nazz]

No, you're not.

What you've written is extremely narrow in scope, and only touches on very specific examples of both libertarianism and socialism.

OK, I disagree <shrug>

 

[Tarheeler]

OK, I disagree <shrug>

I would certainly hope you disagree. It wouldn't be much use to post something you knew to be wrong from the get-go, now would it?

The issues start with your definitions, and snowball from there. To define either socialism or libertartianism in the way you have is to ignore the majority of the individual philosophies.

Generally, socialism does advocate for a communal view of the economy and resources, but it doesn't do so to the exclusion of the individual. It's generally quite the opposite; a communal approach is taken to allow for the rights of the individual to be realized and, in many schools, to allow the individual greater freedom. In a more recent post, you link to the wikipedia page for socialism; instead of using the generally accepted meaning of the word, you instead direct people to the archaic root of the word.

But I noticed that you failed to do the same with the term "libertarianism"; you didn't bother to point out the French "libertaire" was first used in a political sense by the socialist-activist and anarcho-communist Josnist Dejacque to describe philosophical ideal and his communist publication 'Le Libertaire, Journal du mouvement social' ('The Libertarian, Journal of the social movement'). You also ignored the fact that left-libertarian movements have always been a large part of the libertarian ideology, and play the prominent role outside of the US.

You then enter into economics and contrast state-directed economy to laissez-faire capitalism, add in fascism, and end up at totalitarian Marxism.



If "overall and general" was your goal, you missed it be a long shot. Both ideologies are diverse and robust, and they encompass many different schools with their own tenets. To reduce them to extreme minarchism and totalitarian Marxism is to ignore the actual definition of both philosophies.

 

[nazz]

The issues start with your definitions, and snowball from there. To define either socialism or libertartianism in the way you have is to ignore the majority of the individual philosophies.

My consistent point is that those individual philosophies share certain commonalities which fall into either the socialist or libertarian camp or else are some mixture of the two.

Generally, socialism does advocate for a communal view of the economy and resources, but it doesn't do so to the exclusion of the individual. It's generally quite the opposite; a communal approach is taken to allow for the rights of the individual to be realized and, in many schools, to allow the individual greater freedom.

Well as I noted socialism is not opposed to individual rights per se. It just views them as less important than the general welfare of society.

In a more recent post, you link to the wikipedia page for socialism; instead of using the generally accepted meaning of the word, you instead direct people to the archaic root of the word.

But I noticed that you failed to do the same with the term "libertarianism"; you didn't bother to point out the French "libertaire" was first used in a political sense by the socialist-activist and anarcho-communist Josnist Dejacque to describe philosophical ideal and his communist publication 'Le Libertaire, Journal du mouvement social' ('The Libertarian, Journal of the social movement'). You also ignored the fact that left-libertarian movements have always been a large part of the libertarian ideology, and play the prominent role outside of the US.

Actually I did in my very first paragraph where I said: What is odd about that is that the term libertarian was first used by some socialists in self reference to themselves and this use persists today outside of the United States.

But you do make a good point nevertheless. It does seem inconsistent that I am using the original definition of socialism and a more modern and USA-centric definition of libertarianism. But there is a method to my madness. Libertarian is a better term to use when describing the philosophy that used to be called liberalism because the term liberal has come to connote something different from classical liberalism. But what term could we use to better describe what I mean by socialism? I can't think of any. Besides the examples of socialist systems we have seen in real life pretty much uniformly exhibit the characteristics of my definition. The ones that don't, such as European social democracies, are not viewed as purely socialist but rather mixed economies.

I suggest that those socialists who employed the term libertarian in self reference really were libertarians by my definition. As are some today. They may have advocated collective ownership of land and the means of production but they just figured that would become the natural order of things once the state was abolished. They would argue, against other socialists, that the general welfare of society does not improve by curtailing individual liberty but rather that it improves by maximizing individual freedom.

 

[Laika]

Certainly capitalists benefited greatly under fascist regimes. But the state did not exist to serve them; rather it used them to further its own interests. Everything in a fascist system revolves around serving the state. Let's remember that the full name of the Nazi party was the National Socialist German Worker's Party and that before turning to fascism Mussolini identified as a socialist. You may want to read this:

Fascism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

just one quote:



Yes, and according to how I am defining things they are a mixture of libertarian and socialist ideas. Look I am not making this stuff up:

Socialism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hurrah! we understand each other! (In most libertarianism/socialism debates that doesn't happen).

I realize you're not making this stuff up. But it's not the whole truth; there is a much bigger picture which complicates things. The truth is not as self-evident or as simple as we would like it to be.

The Nazi's started out with some Socialist tendencies, but over time they became more and more Nationalist. The "Left-wing" of the Nazi Party was purged in the Knight of the Long Knives in 1934, when Hitler ordered the destruction of the SA, whose leader Ernst Rohm wanted a "second socialist revolution" after the Nazi's got power. This upset Hitler's Industrialist Backers, so he got rid of the SA. Socialism was very popular in Germany, and the Nazi's used it as a way to win supporters among the working class and the middle class. This does not mean they were automatically socialist.

the Nazi's described themselves as Socialist but keep in mind that East Germany described itself as the "German Democratic Republic". North Korea is officially the "People's Democratic Republic of Korea". Are either of them recognizably democracies in a sense with which we are familiar? No. but they had an elected system of government and therefore claimed to be "democracies".
When Orwell talked about Doublethink in 1984 he wasn't joking; the Nazi's described themselves as Socialist but were supported by Conservative German Industrialists; The Communists considered themselves democrats because they had a system of government based on elections, even if it was for a one party-state, and thought this therefore gave them legitimacy as representatives of the "working class". The extent of political propaganda in both these systems changed the very definition of the words they were using. A similar thing has happened in the US with definitions of Libertarianism and Socialism.

Socialism has been demonized as something which is inherently opposed to individualism. But this was not how Socialists or Communists saw themselves; Communists wanted to build a FREE society.

If you don't believe me, here's the devil himself.

Communists did not believe in the destruction of individuality. Ok, there were a handful but these were lunatics even by Communist standards and were the Soviet equivalent to US anarcho-capitalists who want to abolish the state by privatizing defense companies etc.
The confusion is because Communism and Libertarianism have sharply different and conflicting definitions of freedom. individuality is equated with private property and self-ownership in libertarianism. This definition served the purposes of the Cold War propagandists who wanted to depict the USSR in the most diabolical terms of the destruction of all human values; freedom, democracy, individuality, truth, ethics, progress etc. Communists had a conceptions of these things such as individuality, just not one that is instantly recognizable.

"There is not, nor should there be an irreconcilable contrast between individual interests and the interests of the collective." (Joesph Stalin).

Admittedly, you don't know where you can trust Stalin's word on it. You can also find quotes which pass Lenin off as a democratic humanitarian. A lot of people did and thought Stalin was all-but the savior of the human race by leading the world to utopia. they were wrong. I'm not going to argue whether they were right as I still think what they did was evil.
However, it is no where near as clear cut as "Libertarianism= good: Socialism= Evil". The same thing has happened to Atheism which was equated with Communism in the Cold War, even though it is nowhere near that simple. People believed communism was going to make a better world and it was the task of US and Soviet propagandists to discredit each others systems. The US said communism is "totalitarian" evil empire; the Soviets said capitalism is "rule by capitalist class", was not democratic or free or humane.

Put yourself in the Soviets shoes. Is it really credible to think that people would believe in something which was going to destroy them? Could you dupe so many people into a supporting a system which did such terrible things, unless people thought it was for some 'good' reason? Communists genuinely wanted to build a utopia. But they got something horribly wrong.

What made Communism so terrifying was not that they committed human rights abuses because they were corrupt dictators that wanted power; it was because they were so breathtakingly sincere that it was justified by the greater good of building a utopia. They were almost interchangeable with religious fundamentalists who wanted to build paradise on earth, only the Soviets had nuclear weapons and no-one knew if they would use them. The only way to discredit them was to focus on it's devastating consequences and ignore the "good intentions" of what communists said and believed they were doing. Communists generally got their strongest supporters from intellectuals because there theories were so convincing, but the US had the advantage of it just doesn't "sell" well to the majority because of how alien and complicated the arguments are. Libertarianism simply fits with deeply rooted ideas of free will and morality with a judeao-Christian tradition.