• 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!

Is Socialism Viable?

Matthew78

aspiring biblical scholar
Quite recently, I made a decision to abandon libertarian socialism. I liked libertarian socialism and, of all of the models that I read about, the one I liked best was the model of "Participatory Economics". I was on ZNet quite recently and I read of an exchange between Michael Albert and David Horowitz. Horowitz stated in his reply that he would only have a serious exchange with a socialist if that socialist read the critiques of Von Mises and Hayek. Albert replied that if Horowitz was interested, he could consult the book that Albert coauthored with Robin Hahnel, A Quiet Revolution in Welfare Economics. In that book, Albert stated, Horowitz would find replies to Von Mises and Hayek. I found an online copy of the book and went through it, looking for a reply to Hayek. I didn't find one although Hayek was mentioned.

I also requested a hardcover copy of this book through interlibrary loan and when I got it, I went through the book's index and even scanned the chapters, hoping I would find this reply to Hayek. I'm not sure what the reply was supposed to be. After I was finished looking for the reply and I could not find it, I realized that in order to continue calling myself a libertarian socialist, it would be best for me to become an expert on economics in general, and socialism in particular. The best way for me to do that would be to become an economist.

This would take years of school and training to do. I would have to get a second bachelor's degree (my first was in history), then a master's degree in economics, followed by a Ph.D. degree. But I want to return to school and get a bachelor's degree, a master's degree, and a doctorate in some other subject when I get enough money to pursue it. Since I realize that I didn't have the expertise to judge which model of libertarian socialism was the best, I decided that it would best for me that I not continue to call myself one.

So, I consider myself neither a socialist or a capitalist. I'm an economic and political independent. Sometimes I wonder if I made a mistake. I wonder if I really need to become an expert in economics just to be a socialist. I"m convinced that I would. Maybe some day I will pursue advanced degrees in economics to expertly test whether or not socialism is viable, and if it is, which model is the best.
 

Sunstone

De Diablo Del Fora
Premium Member
If you're an American, Socialism does not work. If your Swedish, it works. The Swedes can do anything.
 

Storm

ThrUU the Looking Glass
I consider myself a "tactical socialist."

I believe that the best system is mostly capitalism, but balanced by socialist compassion.

As I see it, the American system has swung too far into capitalism, so I promote the socialist side of things to get back to that balance.
 

Matthew78

aspiring biblical scholar
I consider myself a "tactical socialist."

I believe that the best system is mostly capitalism, but balanced by socialist compassion.

As I see it, the American system has swung too far into capitalism, so I promote the socialist side of things to get back to that balance.

Would that be considered a form of "social democracy"?
 

Matthew78

aspiring biblical scholar
Socialism is unnatural. Humans are not social animals.

What do you mean "unnatural"? This sounds like an argument I sometimes read about. It goes something like: "Well, socialism sounds nice on paper but human nature is too crappy to allow for it. Humans are too selfish and petty for socialism to work, especially one that relies on voluntary cooperation"
 

Penumbra

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Quite recently, I made a decision to abandon libertarian socialism. I liked libertarian socialism and, of all of the models that I read about, the one I liked best was the model of "Participatory Economics". I was on ZNet quite recently and I read of an exchange between Michael Albert and David Horowitz. Horowitz stated in his reply that he would only have a serious exchange with a socialist if that socialist read the critiques of Von Mises and Hayek. Albert replied that if Horowitz was interested, he could consult the book that Albert coauthored with Robin Hahnel, A Quiet Revolution in Welfare Economics. In that book, Albert stated, Horowitz would find replies to Von Mises and Hayek. I found an online copy of the book and went through it, looking for a reply to Hayek. I didn't find one although Hayek was mentioned.

I also requested a hardcover copy of this book through interlibrary loan and when I got it, I went through the book's index and even scanned the chapters, hoping I would find this reply to Hayek. I'm not sure what the reply was supposed to be. After I was finished looking for the reply and I could not find it, I realized that in order to continue calling myself a libertarian socialist, it would be best for me to become an expert on economics in general, and socialism in particular. The best way for me to do that would be to become an economist.

This would take years of school and training to do. I would have to get a second bachelor's degree (my first was in history), then a master's degree in economics, followed by a Ph.D. degree. But I want to return to school and get a bachelor's degree, a master's degree, and a doctorate in some other subject when I get enough money to pursue it. Since I realize that I didn't have the expertise to judge which model of libertarian socialism was the best, I decided that it would best for me that I not continue to call myself one.

So, I consider myself neither a socialist or a capitalist. I'm an economic and political independent. Sometimes I wonder if I made a mistake. I wonder if I really need to become an expert in economics just to be a socialist. I"m convinced that I would. Maybe some day I will pursue advanced degrees in economics to expertly test whether or not socialism is viable, and if it is, which model is the best.
Well, I'm always in favor of education, but formal education is not everything.

Learning economics is useful, but it's not required to have a PhD in economics to have informed opinions on economic issues. After all, many economists didn't see the whole financial collapse looming.

One can become rather informed on economics by understanding how the Fed monetary system works (seeing as how you are American), by reading annual reports of companies from all sorts of sectors, by reading up on money, rates of return, worldwide economic issues, and so forth. And you can study some of the more successful models in other countries. Plus, you can study history to see how previous economic decisions have worked out, and so forth. My interaction with students studying for a bachelor's in finance or economics is that one can learn just as much from practical experience, investing, and serious study on economic issues than one can in a class room (although a good professor would likely help).

I consider myself a "tactical socialist."

I believe that the best system is mostly capitalism, but balanced by socialist compassion.

As I see it, the American system has swung too far into capitalism, so I promote the socialist side of things to get back to that balance.
Social Democracy
 

Sunstone

De Diablo Del Fora
Premium Member
What do you mean "unnatural"? This sounds like an argument I sometimes read about. It goes something like: "Well, socialism sounds nice on paper but human nature is too crappy to allow for it. Humans are too selfish and petty for socialism to work, especially one that relies on voluntary cooperation"

Do you buy into that argument?
 

Storm

ThrUU the Looking Glass
From the Wiki:
In general, contemporary social democrats support:

Yeah, that's me.

Anyone know a party I should join?
 

Penumbra

Veteran Member
Premium Member
From the Wiki:
In general, contemporary social democrats support:

Yeah, that's me.

Anyone know a party I should join?
Well, democrats are like a crippled version of this, but it's by far the closest out of the two major parties. If it's not close enough, I suppose you'll have to seek out smaller political parties.
 

Matthew78

aspiring biblical scholar
Do you buy into that argument?

That human nature is way too selfish and petty to allow any kind of voluntary socialism to work? Not at all. Even people who like the idea of socialism but dismiss it with a pessimistic tone of doom about human nature seem to pass a moral judgment on selfishness and greed. They don't seem to like it or otherwise they wouldn't judge selfishness and greed as bad. In my opinion, they wouldn't even describe human nature as crappy if they approved of selfishness, greed, exploitation, etc.
 

Storm

ThrUU the Looking Glass
Well, democrats are like a crippled version of this, but it's by far the closest out of the two major parties. If it's not close enough, I suppose you'll have to seek out smaller political parties.
Yeah. I'm reg. Dem.

I don't mind third parties, but I don't know who'd suit me, either. Any tips?
 

Storm

ThrUU the Looking Glass
That human nature is way too selfish and petty to allow any kind of voluntary socialism to work? Not at all. Even people who like the idea of socialism but dismiss it with a pessimistic tone of doom about human nature seem to pass a moral judgment on selfishness and greed. They don't seem to like it or otherwise they wouldn't judge selfishness and greed as bad. In my opinion, they wouldn't even describe human nature as crappy if they approved of selfishness, greed, exploitation, etc.
I think he was joking. ;)
 

Sunstone

De Diablo Del Fora
Premium Member
That human nature is way too selfish and petty to allow any kind of voluntary socialism to work? Not at all. Even people who like the idea of socialism but dismiss it with a pessimistic tone of doom about human nature seem to pass a moral judgment on selfishness and greed. They don't seem to like it or otherwise they wouldn't judge selfishness and greed as bad. In my opinion, they wouldn't even describe human nature as crappy if they approved of selfishness, greed, exploitation, etc.

Interesting point.
 
Top