• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

A New and Better Understanding of Socialism

Tarheeler

Argumentative Curmudgeon
Premium Member
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.


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.


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.
You're missing my point entirely.

I understand what you're doing, and you're free to describe your understanding however you wish. But, in doing so, you are presenting a narrowed and specific view of both ideologies that completely ignores the overarching ideals.
 

nazz

Doubting Thomas
Hurrah! we understand each other! :D (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.
Yes, I am aware of that history but it doesn't really change my view. Can you acknowledge that by the definition of socialism I have provided National Socialism was indeed socialistic? I'm not asking for agreement with my definition but just acknowledgment that is is consistent with that definition. I offer the following to support my contention that capitalist activities were controlled by the Nazi state:

To tie farmers to their land, selling agricultural land was prohibited.[164] Farm ownership was nominally private, but business monopoly rights were granted to marketing boards to control production and prices with a quota system.[165]
Hitler believed that private ownership was useful in that it encouraged creative competition and technical innovation, but insisted that it had to conform to national interests and be "productive" rather than "parasitical".[174] Private property rights were conditional upon the economic mode of use; if it did not advance Nazi economic goals then the state could nationalise it.[175] Although the Nazis privatised public properties and public services, they also increased economic state control.[176] Under Nazi economics, free competition and self-regulating markets diminished; nevertheless, Hitler's social Darwinist beliefs made him reluctant to entirely disregard business competition and private property as economic engines.[177][178]

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".
Agreed

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;
Only because they profited from the arrangement.

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.
I do believe you that their goal (theoretically anyway) was to create a "free society", a society freed from capitalist exploitation of the working class. But that does not conflict with what I wrote in my OP. That goal would be achieved by taking away the individual rights of capitalists to exploit their workers!

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.
You mean libertarianism as espoused by the US Libertarian Party, not the libertarianism championed by the left. And here is the critical distinction: the former believe that individuals have an inherent right to own property. But from where does this right derive? How does the ownership of private property relate to individual liberty? I don't see how it does and left libertarians would agree. You can't really derive an economic theory of property from a philosophy about individual liberty. That said where the libertarian left goes wrong, where it violates the principles of libertarianism, is in asserting that individuals do not have the freedom to exploit one another even if this exploitation stems from mutual agreement.

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).
joseph_stalin_mug.jpg

Admittedly, you don't know where you can trust Stalin's word on it.
I think one has to ask what Stalin really meant by that. Did he mean there should be a balance between the two (doubtful) or did he mean that individual interests need to come into line with collective interests (more probable I would say).

However, it is no where near as clear cut as "Libertarianism= good: Socialism= Evil".
I hope you understand I am suggesting nothing of the sort?

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?
Well a secret police force helps with that :p I think people originally had hopes, hopes that were quickly dashed. There were some true believers, the rest wisely kept silent. I think a recent review of American politics demonstrates that people can be duped into voting against their own best interests.

Communists genuinely wanted to build a utopia. But they got something horribly wrong.
The ideologues, for sure. Others just exploited the system for their own interests. That is still happening in the former Soviet Union.

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.
right and I am saying that is socialism taken to a totalitarian extreme.

Libertarianism simply fits with deeply rooted ideas of free will and morality with a judeao-Christian tradition.
Hmm, I don't really agree with that at all but that's a whole other subject
 

nazz

Doubting Thomas
You're missing my point entirely.

I understand what you're doing, and you're free to describe your understanding however you wish. But, in doing so, you are presenting a narrowed and specific view of both ideologies that completely ignores the overarching ideals.
What are the overarching ideals in your opinion?
 

Laika

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Yes, I am aware of that history but it doesn't really change my view. Can you acknowledge that by the definition of socialism I have provided National Socialism was indeed socialistic? I'm not asking for agreement with my definition but just acknowledgment that is is consistent with that definition. I offer the following to support my contention that capitalist activities were controlled by the Nazi state:

To tie farmers to their land, selling agricultural land was prohibited.[164] Farm ownership was nominally private, but business monopoly rights were granted to marketing boards to control production and prices with a quota system.[165]
Hitler believed that private ownership was useful in that it encouraged creative competition and technical innovation, but insisted that it had to conform to national interests and be "productive" rather than "parasitical".[174] Private property rights were conditional upon the economic mode of use; if it did not advance Nazi economic goals then the state could nationalise it.[175] Although the Nazis privatised public properties and public services, they also increased economic state control.[176] Under Nazi economics, free competition and self-regulating markets diminished; nevertheless, Hitler's social Darwinist beliefs made him reluctant to entirely disregard business competition and private property as economic engines.[177][178]


Agreed


Only because they profited from the arrangement.


I do believe you that their goal (theoretically anyway) was to create a "free society", a society freed from capitalist exploitation of the working class. But that does not conflict with what I wrote in my OP. That goal would be achieved by taking away the individual rights of capitalists to exploit their workers!


You mean libertarianism as espoused by the US Libertarian Party, not the libertarianism championed by the left. And here is the critical distinction: the former believe that individuals have an inherent right to own property. But from where does this right derive? How does the ownership of private property relate to individual liberty? I don't see how it does and left libertarians would agree. You can't really derive an economic theory of property from a philosophy about individual liberty. That said where the libertarian left goes wrong, where it violates the principles of libertarianism, is in asserting that individuals do not have the freedom to exploit one another even if this exploitation stems from mutual agreement.


I think one has to ask what Stalin really meant by that. Did he mean there should be a balance between the two (doubtful) or did he mean that individual interests need to come into line with collective interests (more probable I would say).


I hope you understand I am suggesting nothing of the sort?


Well a secret police force helps with that :p I think people originally had hopes, hopes that were quickly dashed. There were some true believers, the rest wisely kept silent. I think a recent review of American politics demonstrates that people can be duped into voting against their own best interests.

The ideologues, for sure. Others just exploited the system for their own interests. That is still happening in the former Soviet Union.

right and I am saying that is socialism taken to a totalitarian extreme.


Hmm, I don't really agree with that at all but that's a whole other subject

This is covering a lot of issues, so I'll break this up a bit.

Firstly, yes the policies of the National Socialists are consistent with your definition as:

A philosophy which holds that general welfare of a society as a whole is more important than the rights of the individual.

The importance of the differences in the definition is in attributing a cause to the phenomena of national socialism. One says it is the product of the mind of a few crazies who manipulated a whole population, another that it was a product of socioeconomic conditions and therefore was a mess movement representing a crisis of the system. I take the latter view because I don't think Nazi (or Communist) ideas have any power on their own, it is a question of how receptive an audience is to it from their own life-experiences which they take with them into understanding politics. The weakness of the first theory is that it massively exaggerates the power of individual leaders and their ideas, and practically plays into their hands in the first place by a belief that history is made by "great men".

Secondly, if I'm not mistaken libertarian attributes private property as a natural right originating from individual consciousness and free will. Marxism is a deterministic philosophy, and as people's behavior is determined it is determined by others and hence is social. This determination of indivdiual behavior by society constitutes the basis for arguing that social ownership is the more desirable state.

Third, in Marxism the distinction between the individual and collective are blurred because of the way society determines indivdiual existence. I think is probably what Stalin meant. It is not necessary to 'dupe' someone into supporting a system as a person's conception of self-interest is dependent on there conception of "self". This can change to fit into different political and religious ideologies/systems.
 

nazz

Doubting Thomas
This is covering a lot of issues, so I'll break this up a bit.

Firstly, yes the policies of the National Socialists are consistent with your definition
awesome, agreement!

The importance of the differences in the definition is in attributing a cause to the phenomena of national socialism. One says it is the product of the mind of a few crazies who manipulated a whole population, another that it was a product of socioeconomic conditions and therefore was a mess movement representing a crisis of the system. I take the latter view because I don't think Nazi (or Communist) ideas have any power on their own, it is a question of how receptive an audience is to it from their own life-experiences which they take with them into understanding politics. The weakness of the first theory is that it massively exaggerates the power of individual leaders and their ideas, and practically plays into their hands in the first place by a belief that history is made by "great men".
No comment other than your last sentence reminded me of this :p...


Secondly, if I'm not mistaken libertarian attributes private property as a natural right originating from individual consciousness and free will. Marxism is a deterministic philosophy, and as people's behavior is determined it is determined by others and hence is social. This determination of indivdiual behavior by society constitutes the basis for arguing that social ownership is the more desirable state.
OK, but my point is property relations really have no relation to any concept of liberty. One can argue that it is a libertarian principle that one should have the freedom to do with one's property what one pleases but nothing in a philosophy of maximal liberty establishes the right to own property in the first place. And it is for that very reason that libertarians of the right and left persuasions have disagreed on this point. You have to go outside the libertarian philosophy to find some rationale for private vs. collective ownership.

Third, in Marxism the distinction between the individual and collective are blurred because of the way society determines indivdiual existence. I think is probably what Stalin meant. It is not necessary to 'dupe' someone into supporting a system as a person's conception of self-interest is dependent on there conception of "self". This can change to fit into different political and religious ideologies/systems.
Be that as it may people who don't define "self" in a collective sense are regularly duped into going against their own self interest.
 

nazz

Doubting Thomas
I am a Libertarian Socialist (Libertarian socialism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia and highly anti-authoritarian.
My brand of Libertarian Socialism seeks to place the means of production into the hands of the workers, decentralize political power, and grant large amounts of personal freedom. The main focus of my political philosophy is individual freedoms and rights.
No need to school me, I am well aware. Libertarian socialist is how I have defined myself for many years up until recently. My underlying views have not changed very much. I still believe that the most equitable economic system is one in which workers are given a fair share in the management and profit of the business in which they are engaged. Which is why I posted this in the Socialist Only forum. What has changed recently is how I view the term "socialism". I am no longer viewing it in the narrow terms of a particular economic system but more broadly as any move to place social concerns over those stemming from purely individual interests.
 

Guy Threepwood

Mighty Pirate
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.

as an academic argument that makes some sense to me, the ultimate problem is that the academic argument never historically relates much to reality. Entrusting a politician to manage your wealth and freedoms for the greater good of society.. is like giving your groceries to a cocker spaniel and asking him to make everybody a sandwich.

Another way to look at this 'contrast' is that socialism does not really contrast with free markets. The contrasting philosophy would be redistributing wealth in the opposite direction, attempting to engineer a wider gap between rich and poor than free markets would dictate, rather than a smaller one.. Again academically, I think an argument could be made where all society would be better off this way... except that it would also require politicians to enforce it- which is where it all goes south again.
 

Laika

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
OK, but my point is property relations really have no relation to any concept of liberty. One can argue that it is a libertarian principle that one should have the freedom to do with one's property what one pleases but nothing in a philosophy of maximal liberty establishes the right to own property in the first place. And it is for that very reason that libertarians of the right and left persuasions have disagreed on this point. You have to go outside the libertarian philosophy to find some rationale for private vs. collective ownership.

Thanks for the vid, btw. :D

I think stunningly, this is one of the few things that Communists and Right-wing Libertarians agree on; The idea that there is a relationship between economic and political systems is based on the relationship between the means (economics) and deciding the ends (politics) has gained considerable currency, particularly in a Cold War environment. By having private property, it gives individuals the means to choose their own ends. Whereas collectivists systems reply on collective institutions to decide their ends, such as the state but not necessarily. admittedly, the idea that the two are mutually exclusive and polar opposites is no doubt simplistic and may well be a result of Marxist influences on neo-liberalism when communists turned into anti-communists, but there are definitely limits on how far you can change society and we cannot build the world to perfectly fit our ideas, even if we can make it better.

But a cynic like me is not going to stop you is it?;)
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
as an academic argument that makes some sense to me, the ultimate problem is that the academic argument never historically relates much to reality. Entrusting a politician to manage your wealth and freedoms for the greater good of society.. is like giving your groceries to a cocker spaniel and asking him to make everybody a sandwich...
But Neo-Marxist economics doesn't want bigger government but actually much smaller government with less regulation being necessary.
 

nazz

Doubting Thomas
Thanks for the vid, btw. :D

I think stunningly, this is one of the few things that Communists and Right-wing Libertarians agree on; The idea that there is a relationship between economic and political systems is based on the relationship between the means (economics) and deciding the ends (politics) has gained considerable currency, particularly in a Cold War environment. By having private property, it gives individuals the means to choose their own ends. Whereas collectivists systems reply on collective institutions to decide their ends, such as the state but not necessarily. admittedly, the idea that the two are mutually exclusive and polar opposites is no doubt simplistic and may well be a result of Marxist influences on neo-liberalism when communists turned into anti-communists, but there are definitely limits on how far you can change society and we cannot build the world to perfectly fit our ideas, even if we can make it better.

But a cynic like me is not going to stop you is it?;)
I'm actually thinking it all comes down to one's notion of fairness. As I mentioned Libertarian capitalists would argue a person has a right to do with their own property what they please and that notion does strike me as fair so long as that does not negatively impact someone else. Those on the left would question the fairness of how the current ownership of property arose in the first place. At some point someone made a claim "this is mine and not yours". In the US we took land away from Native Americans and gave it white settlers. That was not fair. What seems fair to me is that if you are occupying and using some land for a constructive purpose you have some fair title to that land. If you take some raw materials and turn it into a product you have a fair claim to your improvement of such.
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
I'm actually thinking it all comes down to one's notion of fairness. As I mentioned Libertarian capitalists would argue a person has a right to do with their own property what they please...
But that really only is fair, imo, if a person makes their money totally independent of anyone else, which I would suggest rarely ever happens. Let me give you an example:

I'm a multi-millionaire CEO who's been at that job for 5 years, whereas you have worked at this corporation for 33 years. I, along with the board, decide to move our operations to Timbuktu because we can make more money there. You are now out of a job. Is this fair? Not in my book.

Without you and other workers like you, the investors couldn't make a penny on operations, and I would not have made my millions as CEO. So, why should I and the investors reap the benefits while you're s.o.l.? Fair? Not in my book.
 

Guy Threepwood

Mighty Pirate
But Neo-Marxist economics doesn't want bigger government but actually much smaller government with less regulation being necessary.

well as above, 'want' and 'end up with' are not the same.. any derailing of free markets requires a lot of political power
 

nazz

Doubting Thomas
But that really only is fair, imo, if a person makes their money totally independent of anyone else, which I would suggest rarely ever happens. Let me give you an example:

I'm a multi-millionaire CEO who's been at that job for 5 years, whereas you have worked at this corporation for 33 years. I, along with the board, decide to move our operations to Timbuktu because we can make more money there. You are now out of a job. Is this fair? Not in my book.

Without you and other workers like you, the investors couldn't make a penny on operations, and I would not have made my millions as CEO. So, why should I and the investors reap the benefits while you're s.o.l.? Fair? Not in my book.
Oh, I totally agree. I was thinking more in terms of personal property. But by the same token is if fair to take property away from someone else who has a monetary investment in it without any compensation?
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
Oh, I totally agree. I was thinking more in terms of personal property. But by the same token is if fair to take property away from someone else who has a monetary investment in it without any compensation?
Who said without any compensation?

If a company is mostly employee owned, this doesn't mean that no investment money can come in. It's just that this outside investment money cannot be controlling stock.
 

nazz

Doubting Thomas
Who said without any compensation?

If a company is mostly employee owned, this doesn't mean that no investment money can come in. It's just that this outside investment money cannot be controlling stock.
Well it has happened that industries have been nationalized without compensation. That is what I was referring to.
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
Well it has happened that industries have been nationalized without compensation. That is what I was referring to.
Yes, I can see that, but this I was not what I was referring to since Neo-Marxists mostly advocate employee-ownership versus government-ownership.

However, getting from Point A to Point B can be rather tricky, no doubt.
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
like the German Socialist Workers Party? you're still handing it all over to the government which = certain disaster every time
Not in the slightest am I advocating this.

BTW, the NAZI's were fascists, not philosophically socialists. One simply cannot state and mean that they want an economic system that benefits all, and then go about exterminating people they don't want. The same holds true with the Soviets and Chinese "communists" as well.
 
Top