|
Taking Socialism Seriously
|
|
Topic Started: Feb 23 2012, 09:36 PM (669 Views)
|
|
Chris
|
Feb 23 2012, 09:36 PM
Post #1
|
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
- Posts:
- 10,097
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #230
- Joined:
- Oct 17, 2011
|
This article pretty well nails the differences between the left and right.
Taking Socialism Seriously- Quote:
-
In a master/slave world there is no right or wrong. There are the strong and the weak (the rich and the poor). Socialism sees the world through the prism of master/slave. From this vantage point "truth" is synonymous with "power." Socialists claim to be able to use that power, by making the state the locus of authority, to bring about justice and peace. To borrow a phrase appropriate to the occasion, let's descend to this "low but solid ground" and take socialism seriously. There is a way, using the master/slave logic of the left, to distinguish legitimate from illegitimate political power.
These two positions are the pillars of leftist thinking:
(1) an "objective" or fair government, and (2) justice through full equality.
The second pillar (justice) can be split into a complimentary pair of concepts:
2a) Equality before the law, and 2b) (approximate) economic equivalence.
If a leftist thinking person is sincere in his or her support of these aims, notice how much this person shares with conservatism. Conservatives also want (1) an objective, accountable, government and they demand (2a) equality before the law.
The difference between a sincere socialist and a genuine conservative is that the socialist's goals depends upon the existence of
(1) an objectively ruled and judicially unbiased state (2a) to establish and enforce legal equality, and (2b) to ensure economic equivalence -- i.e., to "spread the wealth."
The conservative position on (2b) is that economics is not a zero sum game; wealth is not shared -- it is created and then voluntarily transferred. Government intervention will almost always favor the benefactors of the persons currently in power. Conservatives desire objective or fair legislation and the transparent administration of the law (1) as do all decent people. But, like the Founding Fathers, conservatives are skeptical that this goal can be achieved and sustained.
In order to understand and use the Hegelian/Marxist logic of the left, one must first take these socialist objectives seriously. In fact, one must take socialist aspirations more seriously than many on the left take those goals. Here are current examples of (1) and (2b): First, President Obama's promise of transparency in government was a pledge -- attractive to the left, to moderates, and to conservatives -- for "objective" governing. Clearly, Obama has not kept his principal campaign promise. By no rational measure is "accountability" (1) a characteristic of the Obama administration. Second, Obama's stated (socialist) desire to "spread the wealth" (2b) has not been achieved -- at least not in a fashion that satisfies the aims of the left. If anything, Obama has continued the policy of the presidents who preceded him -- to spread the wealth to his well-heeled political supporters not to the poor and the middle-class.
The reason for the disagreement between the socialist and the conservative is the socialist's acceptance of a master/slave world. Power in this world is wealth-based or economic. According to the socialist, in the modern world the masters and slaves are, respectively, the rich and the poor. An economy based on capital is, from a socialist's view, the struggle between the haves and the have-nots. (Thus, the OWS's protests and claims to be members of the "99.")...
|
|
|
| |
|
Mountainrivers
|
Feb 23 2012, 09:44 PM
Post #2
|
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
- Posts:
- 33,547
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #34
- Joined:
- Mar 24, 2008
|
- Chris
- Feb 23 2012, 09:36 PM
This article pretty well nails the differences between the left and right. Taking Socialism Seriously- Quote:
-
In a master/slave world there is no right or wrong. There are the strong and the weak (the rich and the poor). Socialism sees the world through the prism of master/slave. From this vantage point "truth" is synonymous with "power." Socialists claim to be able to use that power, by making the state the locus of authority, to bring about justice and peace. To borrow a phrase appropriate to the occasion, let's descend to this "low but solid ground" and take socialism seriously. There is a way, using the master/slave logic of the left, to distinguish legitimate from illegitimate political power.
These two positions are the pillars of leftist thinking:
(1) an "objective" or fair government, and (2) justice through full equality.
The second pillar (justice) can be split into a complimentary pair of concepts:
2a) Equality before the law, and 2b) (approximate) economic equivalence.
If a leftist thinking person is sincere in his or her support of these aims, notice how much this person shares with conservatism. Conservatives also want (1) an objective, accountable, government and they demand (2a) equality before the law.
The difference between a sincere socialist and a genuine conservative is that the socialist's goals depends upon the existence of
(1) an objectively ruled and judicially unbiased state (2a) to establish and enforce legal equality, and (2b) to ensure economic equivalence -- i.e., to "spread the wealth."
The conservative position on (2b) is that economics is not a zero sum game; wealth is not shared -- it is created and then voluntarily transferred. Government intervention will almost always favor the benefactors of the persons currently in power. Conservatives desire objective or fair legislation and the transparent administration of the law (1) as do all decent people. But, like the Founding Fathers, conservatives are skeptical that this goal can be achieved and sustained.
In order to understand and use the Hegelian/Marxist logic of the left, one must first take these socialist objectives seriously. In fact, one must take socialist aspirations more seriously than many on the left take those goals. Here are current examples of (1) and (2b): First, President Obama's promise of transparency in government was a pledge -- attractive to the left, to moderates, and to conservatives -- for "objective" governing. Clearly, Obama has not kept his principal campaign promise. By no rational measure is "accountability" (1) a characteristic of the Obama administration. Second, Obama's stated (socialist) desire to "spread the wealth" (2b) has not been achieved -- at least not in a fashion that satisfies the aims of the left. If anything, Obama has continued the policy of the presidents who preceded him -- to spread the wealth to his well-heeled political supporters not to the poor and the middle-class.
The reason for the disagreement between the socialist and the conservative is the socialist's acceptance of a master/slave world. Power in this world is wealth-based or economic. According to the socialist, in the modern world the masters and slaves are, respectively, the rich and the poor. An economy based on capital is, from a socialist's view, the struggle between the haves and the have-nots. (Thus, the OWS's protests and claims to be members of the "99.")...
Is anybody advocating socialism? I think the use of the term socialism is just a way to influence peoples (the rubes) thinking.
|
|
|
| |
|
Chris
|
Feb 23 2012, 10:18 PM
Post #3
|
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
- Posts:
- 10,097
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #230
- Joined:
- Oct 17, 2011
|
Don't get hung up on the word, rivers, look at the definition.
(1) an "objective" or fair government, and (2) justice through full equality. (2a) Equality before the law, and (2b) (approximate) economic equivalence.
Are these not things the left advocates?
Call it what you will.
|
|
|
| |
|
Deleted User
|
Feb 23 2012, 10:23 PM
Post #4
|
|
Deleted User
|
defining socialism is like defining tree. there are so many different brands of it as is the case with any political system/. What Americans define as socialism & what Canadians define as socialism are 2 different things for example. Most Americans (at least the right wing ones) tend to define our country as socialistic while Canadians would call it a fiscally conservative social democracy. Most Canadians would use Cuba as an example of socialism.
|
|
|
| |
|
colo_crawdad
|
Feb 23 2012, 10:36 PM
Post #5
|
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
- Posts:
- 39,310
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #4
- Joined:
- Feb 16, 2008
|
Hasn't Chris told us several times in the relatively past that the terms "right" and "left" are anachronisms of the past and are totally meaningless today?
|
|
|
| |
|
Chris
|
Feb 23 2012, 10:58 PM
Post #6
|
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
- Posts:
- 10,097
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #230
- Joined:
- Oct 17, 2011
|
- colo_crawdad
- Feb 23 2012, 10:36 PM
Hasn't Chris told us several times in the relatively past that the terms "right" and "left" are anachronisms of the past and are totally meaningless today? Yes, and have you and others insisted that's wrong, that you prefer sticking to those terms?
You all are getting hung up on words. But then you all are liberals.
Are these not things you all advocate?
(1) an "objective" or fair government, and (2) justice through full equality. (2a) Equality before the law, and (2b) (approximate) economic equivalence.
It would make an interesting discussion were you all to take a stand.
Of course, if you all don't want to, that's OK.
|
|
|
| |
|
Mountainrivers
|
Feb 23 2012, 11:05 PM
Post #7
|
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
- Posts:
- 33,547
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #34
- Joined:
- Mar 24, 2008
|
- Chris
- Feb 23 2012, 10:58 PM
- colo_crawdad
- Feb 23 2012, 10:36 PM
Hasn't Chris told us several times in the relatively past that the terms "right" and "left" are anachronisms of the past and are totally meaningless today?
Yes, and have you and others insisted that's wrong, that you prefer sticking to those terms? You all are getting hung up on words. But then you all are liberals. Are these not things you all advocate? (1) an "objective" or fair government, and (2) justice through full equality. (2a) Equality before the law, and (2b) (approximate) economic equivalence. It would make an interesting discussion were you all to take a stand. Of course, if you all don't want to, that's OK. "But then you all are liberals. "
I don't know about the others, but I wear that as badge of honor, however "liberal" is as bad as saying left or right. It means different things to different people.
"Are these not things you all advocate?
(1) an "objective" or fair government, and (2) justice through full equality. (2a) Equality before the law, and (2b) (approximate) economic equivalence. "
Again, I don't think you can label everyone with the same terms. And certainly not the above definition.
(1) An objective and fair government. Yes! (2)Justice through equality. Not sure I know what that means, but I believe in equal justice under the law. (2a)Yes (2b)Wouldn't say approximate equivalence, but more equitable.
|
|
|
| |
|
Chris
|
Feb 23 2012, 11:19 PM
Post #8
|
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
- Posts:
- 10,097
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #230
- Joined:
- Oct 17, 2011
|
Still somewhat hung up on words, but getting past that, you acknowledge the description 1 thru 2b fairly accurate.
You change equal to equitable. Can you explain what you mean?
And (2b) seems to be the only contention between liberals and conservatives: "The conservative position on (2b) is that economics is not a zero sum game; wealth is not shared -- it is created and then voluntarily transferred."
|
|
|
| |
|
tomdrobin
|
Feb 23 2012, 11:39 PM
Post #9
|
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
- Posts:
- 19,566
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #14
- Joined:
- Feb 23, 2008
|
What is the relevance of socialism? No one advocates it anymore, except for maybe dying strongmen like Chavez. And, even in the countries that adopted socialism, there never was any equality of economics. It just replaced the economic heirarchy with the socialist government hierarchy.
Now, if you want to start a discussion of the pros and cons of social democracy that would be relevant.
|
|
|
| |
|
Mountainrivers
|
Feb 23 2012, 11:45 PM
Post #10
|
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
- Posts:
- 33,547
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #34
- Joined:
- Mar 24, 2008
|
- Chris
- Feb 23 2012, 11:19 PM
Still somewhat hung up on words, but getting past that, you acknowledge the description 1 thru 2b fairly accurate.
You change equal to equitable. Can you explain what you mean?
And (2b) seems to be the only contention between liberals and conservatives: "The conservative position on (2b) is that economics is not a zero sum game; wealth is not shared -- it is created and then voluntarily transferred." "You change equal to equitable. Can you explain what you mean?"
Equal means equal. equitable means fairness.
Well perhaps you can lump all liberals and conservatives into those little boxes, but we certainly do differ on more than economic matters. I think wealth should be shared, because wealth could not be created without cooperation among the various entities. Management, labor, government all play a part in the success or failure of our system.
|
|
|
| |
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
|