Left versus Right

[MatthewCuffe]

Can somebody please put the case to me for the end of the left-right polarisation in politics?

To me, the left-right distinction is most clear from two examples.

One is the distinction between Jean-Jacques Rousseau's "Social Contract" on the Left - the idea that governments rule according to an implicit contract with the (will of) the people, and on the Right Thomas Hobbes' "Leviathan", written in the midst of the English Civil War, which argues that life is a war of all against all (omnia contra omnes) and so we need a strong government to control the people's worst urges.

Another is the Putney debates during the English Civil War. On the Left was the Leveller Colonel Rainsborough, who argued that "every man that is to live under a government ought first by his own consent be put himself under that government." Against him was Henry Ireton, who believed that a person should not have a political say unless they owned property.

Isn't this it? This basic division between the idea of equality of all on the Left, with the infinity of social programmes that comes from that idea, and the basic idea of life as a hierarchy on the Right, with the corresponding political programmes?

The animating idea on the Left is that of communal property or the abolition of private property - expressed in British social reformist fashion in Clause Four.

The idea on the Right is surely that of private property being natural, healthy, and a reward or recognition of ability.

The four-way axis of left-right, authoritarian-libertarian of the Political Compass website is interesting, for it takes that primary division and deepens it. It does not, however, remove that basic division.

What is the case that people are making for the removal of the Left-Right division entirely and its replacement by a freedom or tyranny opposition? How does it differ from Blair's Middle Way drivel?

 

[Azrael]

That analysis fossilises right-wing thinking two centuries ago and makes several category errors. For a start Hobbes was more liberal than authoritarian. Leviathan demanded consent because he was the people unified, and the right to self-defense is absolute. He also created the idea of negative liberty; anything that isn't explicitly prohibited is allowed.

The right stopped supporting property franchise in the middle of the 19th century; it was Disraeli who brought in near-universal male suffrage; Disraeli who built up trade union rights. He came to champion a society of private enterprise where wealth doesn't decide suffrage and workers can fight out a fair wage for their labours. Social warfare with fair rules of engagement; and giving each side a fighting chance is a damn sight better than letting one dominate another. Creating a soceity-wide monopoly is self-destructive.

Capitalists have been the driving force behind some of the great social programs, they just don't consider the state best suited to running them. It ain't Third Way bollocks because it isn't pretending private capital can be harnessed by the state for socialist goals.

This is fair enough though, if a bit rosy: "The idea on the Right is surely that of private property being natural, healthy, and a reward or recognition of ability." Why realign? Because socialism is inherently authoritarian, and to paraphrase Franklin, those who would sacrifice liberty for equality will loose both, and deserve neither.

 

[fela fan]

Can somebody please put the case to me for the end of the left-right polarisation in politics?

My answer is probably not what you're anticipating mate, but i'll give it anyway! It might serve to have value on this thread.

If it weren't for a left-right polarisation, it'd be another kind. For me politics, as an organising principle for communities, by its very nature means division, strife, and discord.

There is a town in a green valley not far away from where i live. It is surrounded by mountains, and you can only get there by road (a thousand hairpin bends), or by foot. The community is maybe two or three thousand strong. It has local thais, thais from other parts of the country, ethnic tribespeople, muslims, buddhists, christians, and a number of foreigners who have laid semi-permanent roots there.

It is one very peaceful community where crime is just about unheard of, where smiles and comradely behaviour towards all others is the norm, where nature and its beauty are abundant, and in short is the most positive place i've come across in my life.

Politics is non-existent there. The ethos is sufficiency and good neighbourliness. (For foreigners from the west, or indeed anywhere, the attraction is the food, no, the very feast, afforded the soul by the nature and an unexplainable vibe.)

It is slowly changing as more (wealthy) thais and foreign tourists come into the area, with their obscene wads of cash. But at this moment in time, its destruction is a long way off due to the difficulties in getting there, and the locals' determination to preserve their way of life.

My point is that if we as humans are to live together and to have peaceful and just lives, and for all, we need an alternative organising principle to politics.

But that means taming the influence of big business and the mighty dollar and the lure of profit. And those who would wish to say what others should or shouldn't do, and what is good for others, quite ignoring whether it actually is or not.

 

[MatthewCuffe]

I like both of these replies very much indeed. I cannot think of an interesting response at this juncture, but offer thanks, and carry on soliciting for ideas.

 

[MatthewCuffe]

Azrael - I am trawling way back to some very poor learning of Leviathan from years ago - I defer to you here absolutely.

Doesn't Hobbes argue against dual sovereignty?

And if so, how does that link to the explosive lunch between wife Gordon and husband Anthony, or husband Anthony and wife Gordon, at the Granita restaurant in Islington during the Labour election in 1994. As the Express columnist Peter Oborne described it:

"Gordon Brown reluctantly agreed to stand down but insisted on conditions which Blair, guilt-stricken at the turn events had taken, was weak enough to concede. Brown demanded complete control over the economy and sweeping powers of other areas of policy as well. In effect, he demanded, and got, something approaching a duel premiership."

 

[greenman]

Because socialism is inherently authoritarian, and to paraphrase Franklin, those who would sacrifice liberty for equality will loose both, and deserve neither.

Absolute rot. You may as well say that society or the family or democracy is inherently authoritarian. Socialism as a movement has had many currents and intellectual traditions, including authoritarian ones, but aslo including utopian and libertarian ones.
As for quoting Franklin as an authority on Liberty! Hmmm. What was that you were saying about fossilised ideas? Strange how economic domination, subjugation and curtailment of liberty have so often escaped the attention of the great mouthpieces of the enlightened ruling class as they waxed lyrical about freedom. Like the defenders of authoritarian forms of socialism the defenders of idealistic capitalism assured us that all would be well if their nostrums were followed just that little bit more rigorously, but both were simply in effect apologists for different forms of tyrrany.
But the "right" is also a gross simplification. Which right are we talking about here? The BNP? The neo conservatives? The Libertarian Alliance? Religious traditionalists? Some on the right would call fascists a "left wing authoritarian current" - witness their "socialistic" national economic ideas. Likewise religious traditionalists would call neo-liberals and the libertarian right dangerous, immoral, socially left wing libertines.
The political compass is good in that it exposes the ridiculous political shorthand (that seems more common from US rightists) that divides the whole world into two opposing camps.
The key question is not labels like right and left, or even "libertarian or authoritarian", but democracy - and whether you see this, like Skidelsky, Lenin, Hayek and Blair as a very over-rated "middle class" idea that is dangerous to the all important "social order" if taken too seriously, or like the best elements of the libertarian left historically, something that should apply everywhere (economic and social fields) in as direct and immediate a form as possible.

 

[MatthewCuffe]

Greenman is right on this score.

Socialism has libertarian and authoritarian elements.

William Morris's Arts and Crafts movement faces the use of the commanding heights of the economy from 1945-51 under Attlee to attack vested interests.

 

[Soul On Ice]

Greenman is right on this score.

Socialism has libertarian and authoritarian elements.

William Morris's Arts and Crafts movement faces the use of the commanding heights of the economy from 1945-51 under Attlee to attack vested interests.

Matthew - good question worthy of a better response than I can deliver at this late hour (full of ale). But I would just drop this in:

Many looney tunes right winger claim that the Nazis (and this includes neo Nazis like the BNP) were "left wing" because they were self styled "national socialists" and their political programme includes the nationalisation of key industries.

 

[Azrael]

Azrael - I am trawling way back to some very poor learning of Leviathan from years ago - I defer to you here absolutely.

Doesn't Hobbes argue against dual sovereignty?

Yep, he does, and there can be no constraints on the soverign because then he's no longer a soverign.

*But* If he turns tyrant and attacks his people, he is no longer acting as a soverign, so they'll resist, and "it then returns to the Sword".

Hobbes had no time for constitutional checks and balances, but he didn't pen a tyrant's charter.

And if so, how does that link to the explosive lunch between wife Gordon and husband Anthony, or husband Anthony and wife Gordon, at the Granita restaurant in Islington during the Labour election in 1994. As the Express columnist Peter Oborne described it:

"Gordon Brown reluctantly agreed to stand down but insisted on conditions which Blair, guilt-stricken at the turn events had taken, was weak enough to concede. Brown demanded complete control over the economy and sweeping powers of other areas of policy as well. In effect, he demanded, and got, something approaching a duel premiership."

Yeah, true, wouldn't call Blair Hobbsian for a minute. He just thinks he is, but then he misreads everything else he sets his mind to.

 

[Azrael]

Absolute rot. You may as well say that society or the family or democracy is inherently authoritarian. Socialism as a movement has had many currents and intellectual traditions, including authoritarian ones, but aslo including utopian and libertarian ones.

Society and family aren't ideologies, and democracy in its purest form is authoritarian. (It did for Socrates quickly enough.) Of course Socialism's a diverse movement and many Socialists are strong libertarians; but the rule of unintended consequence applies; socialism, implemented in any meaningful sense, inevitably leads to authoritarianism by expanding either the power of the state or proletariat beyond constraint.

As for quoting Franklin as an authority on Liberty! Hmmm. What was that you were saying about fossilised ideas? Strange how economic domination, subjugation and curtailment of liberty have so often escaped the attention of the great mouthpieces of the enlightened ruling class as they waxed lyrical about freedom. Like the defenders of authoritarian forms of socialism the defenders of idealistic capitalism assured us that all would be well if their nostrums were followed just that little bit more rigorously, but both were simply in effect apologists for different forms of tyrrany.

"Ah, a cynic, what an idealist calls a realist." (Sir Humphrey.) No time for 'em whatever their political colour; I've never pretended capitalism is some panacea, my business is accepting life's inevitably flawed and supporting the system that does most good and least harm.

& I said ideas were being fossilised 200 years back, not that everything from 200 years back is fossilised. Passage of time doesn't make truth a lie. Yes, the Franklins didn't pay sufficient heed to economic oppression (let alone freeing their slaves!) but many on the right have since addressed it; but that doesn't mean complete equality is possible or desirable.

I'm for capitalism because I believe socialism creates more, not less, oppression, both economically and physically. Socialist processes deafeat themselves, the measure of equality they bring withers, and we're left with unequal tyranny instead of unequal freedom.

But the "right" is also a gross simplification. Which right are we talking about here? The BNP? The neo conservatives? The Libertarian Alliance? Religious traditionalists? Some on the right would call fascists a "left wing authoritarian current" - witness their "socialistic" national economic ideas. Likewise religious traditionalists would call neo-liberals and the libertarian right dangerous, immoral, socially left wing libertines
The political compass is good in that it exposes the ridiculous political shorthand (that seems more common from US rightists) that divides the whole world into two opposing camps.

Yes, but ideologies, boiled down, are formed of two basic camps, whatever shades there are within those camps.

The key question is not labels like right and left, or even "libertarian or authoritarian", but democracy - and whether you see this, like Skidelsky, Lenin, Hayek and Blair as a very over-rated "middle class" idea that is dangerous to the all important "social order" if taken too seriously, or like the best elements of the libertarian left historically, something that should apply everywhere (economic and social fields) in as direct and immediate a form as possible.

Democracy is ambivalent; it's merely the will of the majority, not inherently virtuous. People can, quite democratically, impose terrible things. Social order is the firewall separating democracy from a mob; governments need restraining, yes; people need restraining, yes. The flaw lies in trusting either without constraint. Nothing should be relied upon to be inherently virtuous.

What should apply universally are checks and balances.

 

[Fledgling]

Society and family aren't ideologies, and democracy in its purest form is authoritarian. (It did for Socrates quickly enough.) Of course Socialism's a diverse movement and many Socialists are strong libertarians; but the rule of unintended consequence applies; socialism, implemented in any meaningful sense, inevitably leads to authoritarianism by expanding either the power of the state or proletariat beyond constraint.

.

Well I think that fo Socialism to become autoritarian it depends on how far the State is removed from the people it purports to serve. In the past the State appears to have achieved a remarkable divorce from the people it supposedly serves and unfortunately this has tinged socialism with a negative appearance. Socialism would become authoritarian if:
state ownership was opposed by a significant number of people yet carried out regardless
the means employed to secure the end were violent and caused harm to many
those acting on behalf of others disregarded humanitarian factors

Basically put these three ideas state that pursuing one ideology doggedly becomes potentially dangerous, given that people are diverse and often flawed.

This is a hard thread to discuss in one post but I think that any ideology is inherently authoritarian unless all people freely consent to it and benefit from it. As no ideology so far has managed to satisfy these conditions I feel there are flaws in all.

 

[greenman]

expanding either the power of the state or proletariat beyond constraint. But who is to do this "constraining" that the proletariat requires?

supporting the system that does most good and least harm.
Is this the same Azrael who bores us to death with tedious consprialoon speculation on thread after thread, confessing to being a supporter of the system?[/I] I may be confusing you with someone with a similar user name?
Yes, the Franklins didn't pay sufficient heed to economic oppression (let alone freeing their slaves!) but many on the right have since addressed it; What like the Rockefellers? Hahahahahahaha They funded Herbert Marcuse doncha know

I'm for capitalism because I believe socialism creates more, not less, oppression, both economically (compare and contrast the condition of the poorest in social democratic states with those in comparably developed fundamentalist capitalist ones! Sweden and the USA for example) and physically(Ditto!). Socialist processes deafeat themselves, the measure of equality they bring withers, and we're left with unequal tyranny instead of unequal freedom. You are playing the usual US right/conservative game of only comparing the most developed and relatively liberal parts of the capitalist world with the most authoritarian examples of state capitalism. Heard it all before. Socialism is what YOU say it is, not what any socialist, social democrat, ecosocialist or libertarian socialist might put forward

Yes, but ideologies, boiled down, are formed of two basic camps, whatever shades there are within those camps. Simplistic reductionsim then - You are either with us or against us, is it? Now where have we heard that before?[/I]

Democracy is ambivalent; it's merely the will of the majority, not inherently virtuous. People can, quite democratically, impose terrible things. Social order is the firewall separating democracy from a mob; governments need restraining, yes; people need restraining, yes. (Again, who is doing this restraining? If you say a proper system of rules, laws and principles then I suggest not many socialists would disagree with you, if you mean some body of people or class or capitalistic mode of economic organisation then your own "authoritarianism" is showing.)The flaw lies in trusting either without constraint. Nothing should be relied upon to be inherently virtuous.
(But you rely on capitalism to be INHERENTLY - your word - MORE virtuous than socialism, without the slightest regard to its ecocidal trajectory, nor its continuance of imperialistic warmongering)

What should apply universally are checks and balances (Why are these not possible under forms of socialism, because socialists are bad people, unlike all these virtuous entrepeneurs? Because in some deterministic fashion all forms of socialism decay into Stalinism?

I thought it was socialists who were meant to be overly deterministic? Your argument is rather like those of the church when it argued that even the slightest heresy would lead to complete moral breakdown. For me I will continue to support the erosion of the economic and political dominance of the current ruling class whenever I can, rather than issue apologetics and hold on to nurse for fear of something worse. That might not lead to the "socialism" of our imagination but it is better than being an apologist for the status quo.

 

[Azrael]

Originally by Greenman
But who is to do this "constraining" that the proletariat requires?

I said *all* need constraining, be they bourgeoisie, proletariat or the Marquis of Dungy on the Wald. It was a universal comment on human nature -- but typically human virtue has to be decided by one's place in the economic pecking order. Belonging to the proletariat gives one superior human virtue somehow?

Is this the same Azrael who bores us to death with tedious consprialoon speculation on thread after thread, confessing to being a supporter of the system? I may be confusing you with someone with a similar user name?

Yep, that would be Azrael23. Not that I mind wasting time correcting mistakes easily clarified by a simple search, not at all.

What like the Rockefellers? Hahahahahahaha They funded Herbert Marcuse doncha know

Dismissing your opponents with straw men, everyone can have a go! I'll take your Rockefeller and raise you a Fidel Castro.

(compare and contrast the condition of the poorest in social democratic states with those in comparably developed fundamentalist capitalist ones! Sweden and the USA for example)

The same Sweden with a nasty line in social-authoritarianism? (Their government's attitude to illegal narcotics makes the DEA look like Dixon of Dock Green.) The economies of state-reliant continental Europe have been stagnating for decades after being scared into statism by the bogeyman of inevitable poverty. It's false security because it's unsustainable, state intervention stagnates your economy to the point it's unable to support socialist social welfare in any meaningful sense. Just look at the rationing bedeviling the NHS.

Counter to the accepted wisdom of capitalism's self-destructiveness, cack-handed state intervention played a big part in bringing on the Depression. I want an economy that brings high employment through its own strength instead of a coma economy relying on state life support to keep going.

America's dire treatment of poor and dispossessed can be blamed on a nasty streak of social-conservatism, not capitalism; it's perfectly possible to adopt capitalist methods to help the poor, take Massachusetts' program of assisted medical insurance.

You are playing the usual US right/conservative game of only comparing the most developed and relatively liberal parts of the capitalist world with the most authoritarian examples of state capitalism. Heard it all before. Socialism is what YOU say it is, not what any socialist, social democrat, ecosocialist or libertarian socialist might put forward.

Put something forward beside straw men and you might have a point.

Simplistic reductionsim then - You are either with us or against us, is it? Now where have we heard that before?

'Cept I divided a particular argument into two basic blocks of thought, not the entire planet. Any more fucking straw men? Why not have Christopher Lee walk on and be done with it.

Again, who is doing this restraining? If you say a proper system of rules, laws and principles then I suggest not many socialists would disagree with you, if you mean some body of people or class or capitalistic mode of economic organisation then your own "authoritarianism" is showing.)

A system of laws, yes, aided by a particular economic organization, though if I'm such a big authoritarian funny how I'm a consistent supporter of increased trade union rights isn't it?

But you rely on capitalism to be INHERENTLY - your word - MORE virtuous than socialism, without the slightest regard to its ecocidal trajectory, nor its continuance of imperialistic warmongering)

How exactly is capitalism inherently anti-environment or imperialist?

Why are these not possible under forms of socialism, because socialists are bad people, unlike all these virtuous entrepeneurs? Because in some deterministic fashion all forms of socialism decay into Stalinism? I thought it was socialists who were meant to be overly deterministic? Your argument is rather like those of the church when it argued that even the slightest heresy would lead to complete moral breakdown. For me I will continue to support the erosion of the economic and political dominance of the current ruling class whenever I can, rather than issue apologetics and hold on to nurse for fear of something worse. That might not lead to the "socialism" of our imagination but it is better than being an apologist for the status quo.

To be an apologist I'd need to be apologizing for something, which I ain't, and neither does opposing the socialist solution necessitate support for the current status quo or preclude supporting a different way of changing it.

*Tosses all the strawmen into a big pile and lets it warm cockles while waiting for the reply*

 

[Azrael]

This is more like it ...

Well I think that fo Socialism to become autoritarian it depends on how far the State is removed from the people it purports to serve. In the past the State appears to have achieved a remarkable divorce from the people it supposedly serves and unfortunately this has tinged socialism with a negative appearance. Socialism would become authoritarian if:
state ownership was opposed by a significant number of people yet carried out regardless
the means employed to secure the end were violent and caused harm to many
those acting on behalf of others disregarded humanitarian factors

Basically put these three ideas state that pursuing one ideology doggedly becomes potentially dangerous, given that people are diverse and often flawed.

This is a hard thread to discuss in one post but I think that any ideology is inherently authoritarian unless all people freely consent to it and benefit from it. As no ideology so far has managed to satisfy these conditions I feel there are flaws in all.

Yes, I agree, states implementing Socialism in an agressive top-down way has given it a bad name. But I believed the problem lay with governments I'd be arguing against state-capitalism, not Socialism. I'm against Socialism because people inevitably form into heirachies and pass responsibility up the ladder, so even if it began as a proletariot movement it'd soon return to statism; and if you found a way of maintaining the mass movement, a vast ammount of power can corrupt the many just as easily as the few.

 

[deeplysceptical]

Posting on the fence here ,and well written Matthew Cuffe and Azreal here, I don´t see how socialism can be anything but authoritarian(making no value judgement on the morality of Authority or lack of it at this juncture).

Since Socialism requires that the product of labour be forcibly extracted from the producer if he is not willing to participate then it is ,be neccessity,an authoritarian belief. Under a libertarian system any person would be free to join a cooperative and contract to share such produce but socialism in its many forms doesn´t allow for the choice to opt in or out. It insists on participation.

 

[greenman]

but typically human virtue has to be decided by one's place in the economic pecking order. Belonging to the proletariat gives one superior human virtue somehow?

human virtue is decided by one's place in the economic pecking order? Well, capitalism is not a moral system - therefore an economic agent who is consistently moral will not realize as much profit as the immoral (Greshams Law?) and therefore places in the economic pecking order may tend to reflect this

Yep, that would be Azrael23. Not that I mind wasting time correcting mistakes easily clarified by a simple search, not at all.

A thousand apologies


The same Sweden with a nasty line in social-authoritarianism? (Their government's attitude to illegal narcotics makes the DEA look like Dixon of Dock Green.) The economies of state-reliant continental Europe have been stagnating for decades after being scared into statism by the bogeyman of inevitable poverty. Nonsense - if you look at Scandinavian economies on their own they perform relatively well - the relatively poor performance of Southern European "social democratic" economies suggest some other factors are at play - particularly when we see that Italy under neo-liberal Berlusconi has experienced similar problems, despite his "reforms"f It's false security because it's unsustainable, state intervention stagnates your economy to the point it's unable to support socialist social welfare in any meaningful sense.If you look at SE Asian economies it is only through "state intervention" and regulation on a national basis that their economies have been allowed to develop protected from the gangster capitalism that "libertarian" capitalists seem to favour Just look at the rationing bedeviling the NHS. You mean the problems brought on by PFI, outsourcing and the forced introduction of the market where it has no place?

Counter to the accepted wisdom of capitalism's self-destructiveness, cack-handed state intervention played a big part in bringing on the Depression. And the response which Europe successfully adopted after the war was often based on Keynesianism, which you no doubt would classify as a dangerous socialistic tendency? I want an economy that brings high employment through its own strength instead of a coma economy relying on state life support to keep going. Actually, I somewhat agree with you in a devil's advocate sort of way - I wonder how long European and American corporate capitalism would survive if all support in terms of tax breaks, Export Credit guarantees, favourable government intervention, business biased planning systems, and restrictive TU legislation etc etc were withdrawn- and explicit support was given to worker takeovers in the form of co-operatives?

America's dire treatment of poor and dispossessed can be blamed on a nasty streak of social-conservatism, A poor get out - what is the economic basis of the social conservatism? not capitalism; it's perfectly possible to adopt capitalist methods to help the poor, take Massachusetts' program of assisted medical insurance. I don't deny that - but what happens when something is needed but is not profitable?


A system of laws, yes, aided by a particular economic organization, though if I'm such a big authoritarian funny how I'm a consistent supporter of increased trade union rights isn't it? Are you? Do you support the right to secondary action (AKA Solidarity)? What restrictions would you put on unions then, seeing as the working class needs to be , in your words, "Constrained"?
How exactly is capitalism inherently anti-environment or imperialist?
As I say, capitalism is not a moral/philosophical system, it is a mode of production surrounded by a superstructure of ideological justification after the event. Therefore, if industry can make a profit from helping the environment, then it will, if it is not in its interest (which, without state, worker or community intervention it is often not) then it will not. We are talking the profit motive and the fiduciary duty. Likewise, capital must seek markets and sources of resources, and as we live on a finite planet, then these become exhausted - if the fiduciary duty is to be met, and the business is not to disappear, new sources of raw materials are sought. Where national capital is blocked for whatever politico/economic/sectarian reasons from access to raw materials it will call in its favours with national/bloc ruling classes to secure such access - hence imperialism involving diplomatic or military intervention in the affairs of other nominally "sovereign" states. Of course, this is in extremis - in most cases the hangover of colonialism, normal capitalist property transfers and the unjust global financial and trading systems will suffice to rob the inhabitants of "sovereign" states, tribal peoples, "undeveloped" areas of what they may have regarded as their birthright.

To be an apologist I'd need to be apologizing for something, which I ain't, and neither does opposing the socialist solution necessitate support for the current status quo or preclude supporting a different way of changing it.

Fair enough. So what is your solution to imperialism, neo-colonialism, market driven environmental and social destruction, exploitation and alienation at work, the decay of democracy into oligarchy on the way to the rise of demagogues and tyrants? More market, less state? Convince us that that does not mean even more power to unnaccountable corporations and amoral finance, and even less power for ordinary citizens, even less democracy than we currently "enjoy"?
*

Greenman

 

[ZWord]

Posting on the fence here ,and well written Matthew Cuffe and Azreal here, I don´t see how socialism can be anything but authoritarian(making no value judgement on the morality of Authority or lack of it at this juncture).

Since Socialism requires that the product of labour be forcibly extracted from the producer if he is not willing to participate then it is ,be neccessity,an authoritarian belief. Under a libertarian system any person would be free to join a cooperative and contract to share such produce but socialism in its many forms doesn´t allow for the choice to opt in or out. It insists on participation.

I don't know about this, I mean I see the case you're making, and have thought the same myself. But what if instead, Socialism meant that residential property was deemed to be the property of a country, and meant jsut it was impossible to make your living by being a landlord. Or what if it meant simply that all workers within a business had to be considered co-owners of the business as long as they worked there.

 

[Blagsta]

Because socialism is inherently authoritarian, .

how do you work that out?

 

[greenman]

Posting on the fence here ,and well written Matthew Cuffe and Azreal here, I don´t see how socialism can be anything but authoritarian(making no value judgement on the morality of Authority or lack of it at this juncture). If we talk in terms of "authority" then all political systems imply it, even ultra libertarian ones - they often rely on social/cultural sanctions rather than political/legal ones. So your statement is fairly meaningless. The question is in any given system, who has authority, how is it manifested?

Since Socialism requires that the product of labour be forcibly extracted from the producer "the producer?" - you mean "the owner" unless you are talking about the artisan or self employed - whose condition is not significantly altered under most forms of socialism if they wish to continue? But with a corporate entity, ask yourself where the ownership came from, how is social labour, surplus value, community support and individual effort to be teased out to give some statement that the individual owner or more likely these days , owners, of capital are justly able to claim that they should have sole control and ownership? if he is not willing to participate again, socialism is not synonymous with forced collectivisation of independent individual producers then it is ,be neccessity,an authoritarian belief (see statement above over authority and authoritarian). Under a libertarian system (what that - Minimal state? No state?) any person would be free to join a co-operative and contract to share such produce (which sounds like a form of socialism - guild, co-operative or libertarian socialism) but socialism in its many forms see last comment doesn´t allow for the choice to opt in or out Quite simply a falsehood, again casting all the forms of socialism under the shadow of Stalinism. It insists on participation.

Greenman

 

[Blagsta]

, implemented in any meaningful sense, inevitably leads to authoritarianism by expanding either the power of the state or proletariat beyond constraint.

Not true. The ultimate goal of socialism is to destroy the state and remove class divisions which definine people as proletariat or otherwise.

 

[Blagsta]

Society and family aren't ideologies,.

except of course their organisation and function is idealogical - a reflection of the ruling ideology

 

[Blagsta]

Since Socialism requires that the product of labour be forcibly extracted from the producer if he is not willing to participate then it is ,be neccessity,an authoritarian belief. Under a libertarian system any person would be free to join a cooperative and contract to share such produce but socialism in its many forms doesn´t allow for the choice to opt in or out. It insists on participation.

eh? what about libertarian socialism?

 

[Fruitloop]

how do you work that out?

I agree with Azreal, actually, but would add a 'in the first instance'. The plan, such as it is, is that the workers will use the apparatus of the state to crush the bourgeoisie, and only once the threat of counterrevolution has been completely vanquished will the state shrivel away.

The catch with all of this is whether it would actually be the workers who are directing the actions of the state, and whther the organs of state power would indeed disappear when the moment came.

 

[Blagsta]

I agree with Azreal, actually, but would add a 'in the first instance'. The plan, such as it is, is that the workers will use the apparatus of the state to crush the bourgeoisie, and only once the threat of counterrevolution has been completely vanquished will the state shrivel away.

The catch with all of this is whether it would actually be the workers who are directing the actions of the state, and whther the organs of state power would indeed disappear when the moment came.

well that's classic Leninism anyhow

 

[Azrael]

Originally Posted by Greenman
human virtue is decided by one's place in the economic pecking order? Well, capitalism is not a moral system - therefore an economic agent who is consistently moral will not realize as much profit as the immoral (Greshams Law?) and therefore places in the economic pecking order may tend to reflect this

Eh, Gresham's law is a theory about coin purity. Sure it uses the terms "good" and "bad" money, but not in any moral sense.

A thousand apologies

Cheers, think I'll frame 'em. Not individually mind.

Nonsense - if you look at Scandinavian economies on their own they perform relatively well - the relatively poor performance of Southern European "social democratic" economies suggest some other factors are at play - particularly when we see that Italy under neo-liberal Berlusconi has experienced similar problems, despite his "reforms"

I was pointing out the benevolent authoritarianism that goes hand in hand with the Scandinavian model. Even "liberal" Holland has no trial by jury, and lets the cops hold you for a week on a prosecutor's say-so.

As for neo-lib reforms causing the problem in Italy, it's just the opposite; Belusconi wasn't nearly neo-liberal enough, both him and Prodi are masters of unwieldy coalitions with self-styled communists a prominent feature of the political landscape. Germany barely managed the most moderate neo-lib changes to welfare, and France, with its 35-hour working week and over-regulated economy, is stagnating.

.If you look at SE Asian economies it is only through "state intervention" and regulation on a national basis that their economies have been allowed to develop protected from the gangster capitalism that "libertarian" capitalists seem to favour

Yeah true, but I'm no libertarian capitalist, so not the person to be arguing this with. Agree entirely completely free markets don't stay free for long.

You mean the problems brought on by PFI, outsourcing and the forced introduction of the market where it has no place?

No, the problems brought in by a system that was founded on a false equation; as the quality of health care rises, demand depreciates. (As everyone gets healthier.) The NHS leeches revenue instead of creating it, and demand outstrips supply.

I've no time for PFI bollocks, something should be one thing or't other.

And the response which Europe successfully adopted after the war was often based on Keynesianism, which you no doubt would classify as a dangerous socialistic tendency?

Add self-destructive socialist tendency. A disaster caused in part by regulation? Let's cure it with … more regulation. Out economy was stagnating under Keynes' ideology.

Actually, I somewhat agree with you in a devil's advocate sort of way - I wonder how long European and American corporate capitalism would survive if all support in terms of tax breaks, Export Credit guarantees, favourable government intervention, business biased planning systems, and restrictive TU legislation etc etc were withdrawn- and explicit support was given to worker takeovers in the form of co-operatives?

I've nothing against worker co-operatives. Quite the contrary, I wish more Socialists lead by example and created them. Seem to be working very well in parts of Argentina.

A poor get out - what is the economic basis of the social conservatism?

Chicken and egg; you can just as easily argue types of capitalism are products of social conservatism. Certainly the anti-poor shit from the US have far more Biblical than capitalist flavour.

I don't deny that - but what happens when something is needed but is not profitable?

Then it’s the job of the state. But there's very little that isn't profitable in some shape or form. Not that I agree that it's to the benefit of society to use anything profitable for that purpose; I'll happily rant against privatised prisons & policing any time you care to mention.

Are you? Do you support the right to secondary action (AKA Solidarity)? What restrictions would you put on unions then, seeing as the working class needs to be , in your words, "Constrained"?

Twisting what I said, I said *everyone* needs constraining. Yes, I've nothing against secondary action. Restrictions? I'm against the unions kicking the shit out of scabs and causing criminal damage, which probably makes me a frothing authoritarian around here.

As I say, capitalism is not a moral/philosophical system, it is a mode of production surrounded by a superstructure of ideological justification after the event.

Course it's a means of production, but that don't mean it lacks a founding philosophy.

Therefore, if industry can make a profit from helping the environment, then it will, if it is not in its interest (which, without state, worker or community intervention it is often not) then it will not. We are talking the profit motive and the fiduciary duty.

Actually, with appropriate fines and rewards, industry can make a handsome profit from protecting the environment; add necessity, the oil companies are some of the biggest investors in renewable technology now. Again if they genuinely cannot, it's time for government to step in; but most of the time it's government gutlessness, not flaws in the market.

And a company being set in its ways is human nature, not the fault of capitalism. Any sensible Victorian would have jumped ship from gas to electric the moment Swan & Edison came on the scene, but gas companies fought it out well into the 1920s. That doesn't make capitalism anti-electricity!

Likewise, capital must seek markets and sources of resources, and as we live on a finite planet, then these become exhausted - if the fiduciary duty is to be met, and the business is not to disappear, new sources of raw materials are sought. Where national capital is blocked for whatever politico/economic/sectarian reasons from access to raw materials it will call in its favours with national/bloc ruling classes to secure such access - hence imperialism involving diplomatic or military intervention in the affairs of other nominally "sovereign" states.

Powerful socialist countries, if any existed, would be running hell for leather after those self-same resources. Need is need.

Of course, this is in extremis - in most cases the hangover of colonialism, normal capitalist property transfers and the unjust global financial and trading systems will suffice to rob the inhabitants of "sovereign" states, tribal peoples, "undeveloped" areas of what they may have regarded as their birthright.

All of which is an argument against protectionism, not capitalism. On the few occasions a free-market is applied fairly to third world production it's worked to their advantage. Genuinely free markets would have Bush shitting his saddle.

Fair enough. So what is your solution to imperialism, neo-colonialism, market driven environmental and social destruction, exploitation and alienation at work, the decay of democracy into oligarchy on the way to the rise of demagogues and tyrants? More market, less state? Convince us that that does not mean even more power to unnaccountable corporations and amoral finance, and even less power for ordinary citizens, even less democracy than we currently "enjoy"?

Bloody hell, don't want much do you?

Capitalism is the enemy of demagogues and tyrants; you can't consolidate political power without consolidating economic power; through shareholding it holds the promise of giving everyone a piece of the pie. It's got a stinking reputation these days because all the old liberal types, for all their flaws, threw their lot in with socialism; leaving capitalist theory to the batty Thatcherite wing. We're crying out for progressives to re-engage with the ideology they deserted. Remember those first capitalists were radicals fighting to tear down trade barriers and protectionism, to replace the fag end of feudalism with meritocracy.

Oligarchies aren't capitalism, they're everything capitalism's against. It's supposed to be dynamic; it's supposed to open control of capital to whoever is best able to use it. For a start I'd vigorously enforce anti-trust laws and stop bailing out failing companies. Without all those tax-breaks and monopolies it wouldn't look nearly as rosy for uncompetitive corporations.

Problem is, there's no popular understanding of capitalism. People don't see the rot. You'd think they'd find some time to fit the most basic economic theory into schools. You Socialists should be all for that as well.

 

[deeplysceptical]

how do you work that out?

I did note why before but to reitterate.

Socialism demands that the product of my labour is not mine but must be taken from me and be distributed according to need. Since there are many people who do not wish to be part of this sharing then force must be used.hence there is an inherrant authoritarianism.

 

[deeplysceptical]

eh? what about libertarian socialism?

which is what exactly ? (please explain I have no intention to buy books)
does libertarian socialism allow me to opt in or out of a socialist existence ? are there different socialist groups I can chose between .Big Coops or small coops or how about coops of just one or two (in the case of My Wife and I ).

Personally I would be happy if I could find a cooperative group that I could live with -where we share costs in certain areas and use our buying power to get discounts etc but I have no wish to work to fund free riders.

 

[greenman]

Eh, Gresham's law is a theory about coin purity. Sure it uses the terms "good" and "bad" money, but not in any moral sense.

I meant in terms of the words "bad money drives out good", rather than the original coinage sense.
I've nothing against worker co-operatives. Quite the contrary, I wish more Socialists lead by example and created them. Seem to be working very well in parts of Argentina.

Good, glad to hear it



Chicken and egg; you can just as easily argue types of capitalism are products of social conservatism. Certainly the anti-poor shit from the US have far more Biblical than capitalist flavour.

Certainly chicken and egg - we could go on for ever - for example, what economic conditions led to the importance of radical and reactionary religious currents in the USA (i.e colonialism, religious-political exiles, rural and agricultural modes of production, land issues etc.)

Then it’s the job of the state. But there's very little that isn't profitable in some shape or form. Not that I agree that it's to the benefit of society to use anything profitable for that purpose; I'll happily rant against privatised prisons & policing any time you care to mention.

Good

Twisting what I said, I said *everyone* needs constraining. Yes, I've nothing against secondary action. Restrictions? I'm against the unions kicking the shit out of scabs and causing criminal damage, which probably makes me a frothing authoritarian around here.

'cept it isn't "the unions" that do those things, it is the workers - often two distinct things as no doubt some on here would explain at length


Actually, with appropriate fines and rewards, See my comments about the role of governments, communities and workers industry can make a handsome profit from protecting the environment; add necessity, the oil companies are some of the biggest investors in renewable technology now but sometimes necessity is too late!. Again if they genuinely cannot, it's time for government to step in; but most of the time it's government gutlessness, or corporatism - something I think we could agree on opposing not flaws in the market.

And a company being set in its ways is human nature, not the fault of capitalism surely if you are arguinig that it has a "philosophical basis" this should take "human nature" into account? .

Powerful socialist countries, if any existed, would be running hell for leather after those self-same resources. Need is need. Yes it is, but there is a difference between solidarity, fair trade and mutually beneficial agreements on the one hand and imperialist exploitation, intervention and plunder on the other. Again, I, and I would suggest most other socialists of various stripes on here do not recognize the former "communist bloc" as resembling any kind of "socialism" that should be emulated or repeated.

All of which is an argument against protectionism, not capitalism. On the few occasions a free-market is applied fairly to third world production it's worked to their advantage. Now this is where I have to protest - if you said FAIR TRADE - i.e access to Western Markets whilst their infant economies were protected you might have a case - see my SE Asian example - I still don't see how the capitalism you are offering differs from the gangster capitalism of the "libertarian" capitalists, or one which will simply hand over developing economies to super exploitation (neo-colonialism) by Western transnationals Genuinely free markets would have Bush shitting his saddle.

Bloody hell, don't want much do you?

Capitalism is the enemy of demagogues and tyrants; you can't consolidate political power without consolidating economic power; through shareholding it holds the promise of giving everyone a piece of the pie. It's got a stinking reputation these days because all the old liberal types, for all their flaws, threw their lot in with socialism; leaving capitalist theory to the batty Thatcherite wing. We're crying out for progressives to re-engage with the ideology they deserted. Remember those first capitalists were radicals fighting to tear down trade barriers and protectionism, to replace the fag end of feudalism with meritocracy.

Oligarchies aren't capitalism, they're everything capitalism's against. It's supposed to be dynamic; it's supposed to open control of capital to whoever is best able to use it. For a start I'd vigorously enforce anti-trust laws and stop bailing out failing companies. Without all those tax-breaks and monopolies it wouldn't look nearly as rosy for uncompetitive corporations.

Problem is, there's no popular understanding of capitalism. People don't see the rot. You'd think they'd find some time to fit the most basic economic theory into schools. You Socialists should be all for that as well.

Very interesting - of course Marx saw capitalism as a revolutionary development of the productive forces, and who is to say that this process is complete? All a socialist can do is support the development of class forces balancing/opposing those of the ruling class/capitalists and defend working people, the environment and our planetary survival - help prepare and defend the weapons of struggle organisationally and theoretically. We are not, or shouldn't be prophets/messiahs who say THIS will happen in two years or THAT will happen in ten automatically unless those predictiions have a sound scientific basis (as in environmental matters). As a libertarian socialist and ecosocialist, obviously I will support those currents and developments on the progressive side of the equation that hold most promise for a democratic, inclusive, ecologically sound transition to a better world.