Politics So I guess when the s**t hits the fan, everyone's a socialist

[Brunswick Trap King]

And there's the problem; we can tit for tat until we're all blue in the face and angry with everyone involved, or we can simply admit our biases. I genuinely hate cultural relativism for its illogicality, but it serves somewhat as a means by which we can evaluate a political context and ideology on its own terms, rather than doing what we're doing and ticking off massacre after genocide.

It's that objectivity when it comes to this subject matter that I seek, especially when (in an Australian context) so many are still stuck in a cold war mindset.

100%. I think most of us here can recognise our biases except for Mal, who legitimately believes liberalism and capitalism were sent by God to deliver us.

 

[Brunswick Trap King]

Bit like the Trail of Tears or the Bengali Famines of the British Raj. All high points of Liberalism!

Negative impacts on non-white people don't matter to liberals.

Liberals are the crossfitters of ideologies.

 

[Caesar]

Negative impacts on non-white people don't matter to liberals.

Liberals are the crossfitters of ideologies.

‘Liberalism’ means vastly different things to different people depending on where in the world you are. Malifice seems to subscribe to the American version of the term, which is a far cry from the JS Mill-influenced and profoundly anti-socialist ideology that developed in Europe and Australia.

 

[Number37]

You're saying the 'Liberal' part of the representative democracy is marketing, and not a term alone that refers to something?

Not quite.
There is a heck of a lot of convenient overlap between democratic principles and "liberal" principles.
Democratic principles are limited to an ability to cast a vote which conveniently leaves "liberalism" to take credit for all the other endearing features of a democracy.
If we were a "liberal" democracy, at the very least, you would think we would have a Bill of Rights. Yes?
Then you look at countries that do have a BoR and they don't function in a manner consistent with "liberalism".

I suppose the question then becomes, can one have representative democracy without liberalism?

Can & do.
As long as you are willing to properly credit democracy. i.e. It's far more than just voting.

Would it be less free than one that at least acknowledges liberalism in making its laws?

To what degree? What's the difference between a law that recognises liberalism and one that does not?
IMO, the difference is nothing or negligible.

 

[Run n Spread]

In your face thread, those who are in favour of socialism / communism will get a real taste of it. My tip is once they get a taste of it and when we come out the other side they won't want it anymore. Just sayin.

The socialism and free money = Yes
The police lockdown and restrictions = Bad.

Seems commies cant have one without the other.

 

[Cash is King]

What’s this demonisation of the West and the portrayal of Chinese victimhood crap?
They’ve had 150 years plus since the opium wars to sort themselves out which they did in the last 30 years.
Put it this way, so many Chinese wanna migrate to these oppressive western liberal economies yet the reverse is not happening.
Tells you all you need to know.

 

[Nuggs Bunny]

I was talking (if you recall) about the US tendency to involve themselves in other nations politics, and our tendency to view nations from the Eastern Bloc as suspicious for doing the same. We implicitly view communism as suspicious for similar things that America and the West have done in the past. The US backing of the Kuomintang is relevant to the point I made, and beyond that I don't see what we're arguing about.

Oh. I thought you were listing other reasons why most of China was earning less than $2 per day in 1980. Mea culpa

 

[Number37]

Negative impacts on non-white people don't matter to liberals.

Liberals are the crossfitters of ideologies.

They're more like synchronized swimming.

 

[Number37]

Put it this way, so many Chinese wanna migrate to these oppressive western liberal economies yet the reverse is not happening.
Tells you all you need to know.

Does it?
You don't think living 5 people per square metre is a dominant factor?

 

[Gethelred]

Not quite.
There is a heck of a lot of convenient overlap between democratic principles and "liberal" principles.
Democratic principles are limited to an ability to cast a vote which conveniently leaves "liberalism" to take credit for all the other endearing features of a democracy.
If we were a "liberal" democracy, at the very least, you would think we would have a Bill of Rights. Yes?
Then you look at countries that do have a BoR and they don't function in a manner consistent with "liberalism".

Can & do.
As long as you are willing to properly credit democracy. i.e. It's far more than just voting.

To what degree? What's the difference between a law that recognises liberalism and one that does not?
IMO, the difference is nothing or negligible.

I don't agree, but it's food for thought at least.

What’s this demonisation of the West and the portrayal of Chinese victimhood crap?
They’ve had 150 years plus since the opium wars to sort themselves out which they did in the last 30 years.
Put it this way, so many Chinese wanna migrate to these oppressive western liberal economies yet the reverse is not happening.
Tells you all you need to know.

This is the 'So I guess when the s**t hits the fan, everyone's a socialist' thread. Malifice came in and made the case that what we're seeing at present isn't socialism, but welfare within a liberal system, coupled with a celebration of liberalism as a political theory. Some of us responded in opposition, using China as but one example.

You're up to date now. You're welcome.

 

[Number37]

I don't agree, but it's food for thought at least.

I would be interested in reading why.

 

[Gethelred]

Oh. I thought you were listing other reasons why most of China was earning less than $2 per day in 1980. Mea culpa

Turns out you were right, in that post I was discussing the reasons why most of China was earning less than $2 per day in 1980. No mea culpa necessary, and mine to you.

It was one of a list of things I was using to make the argument as for why China hadn't returned to economic giant until recently, though. While the civil war hampered efforts to rebuild in the wake of WW2 (coupled with the almost 200 years of stagnation, civil war, corruption, imperialism from western nations, etc that had occurred there prior to WW1) the blockade between east and west during the cold war hurt their economy a good deal more than mere communism did, IMO.

 

[Gethelred]

I would interested in reading why.

Well, it's in the bits of my post you edited out.

If personhood - individualism - is recognised in law, then your rights are harder to trample over by the collective, covering up a weakness within the democratic system. The classical liberal perspective of your rights extending until they interfere with another's rights is compatible and is an extention of democracy, but is not merely an aspect of it.

When you originally said it it rang true somewhat with me, until I thought about it some. There is a distinction between democracy and liberalism, and that difference is clearly defined by the difference between pure utilitarianism and individualism. In the former system, the collective's rights eclipse the rights of the individual; in the latter, there is no collective but a mass of individuals each making choices right up until their choices are limited by another's rights.

A democratic society could be purely utilitarian, and it could lead to negative outcomes for the few for the sake of the many. A liberal democracy means that while government is representative the rights of individuals are respected, whether officially in a BOR or unofficially as is the case in Australia via common law.

 

[Total Power]

The most vocal proponents of neoliberalism view any measure of social safety net as 'socialist'. It's enormous part of the argument (for example) against universal healthcare in the US.
Ironically, the US spend more than double the amount we do per capita on healthcare for a demonstrably worse outcome.

Words are defined by who uses them. Socialism is a failed experiment that's why numpties like Bernie Sanders try to claim Nordic Model is socialism it's a bunch of ******* .

socialism in Scandinavia didn't work. particularly during the 50's to the 70's there and in many other countries in Europe a lot of services were nationalized, new regulations introduced and taxes were blown sky high. It simply did not work and most countries introduced reforms during the 80's and the 90's. Shortly after the war Sweden was one of the richest countries in Europe thanks to their staying out of both wars. However because of their pioneering in socialist experimentation they lost that position and ended up with a serious economic crisis in the 80's .

As i said in my reply to Shadow, uncapped capitalism doesn't exist, what exists is a medium of free exchange. If look at the Economic Freedom Index you will find that countries like Denmark and Sweden rank far higher than the US. It is also known as welfare capitalism. Capitalism where the state is relatively more active in the economy. The Scandinavian countries are capitalist countries which have produced large, successful corporations like Ikea.

so in short - the actual "socialism" did not work in Scandinavia whenever and wherever it was introduced as it never worked anywhere. What "works" there is a curious mixture of government intervention and free markets but it really doesn't "work" as much as doesn't spectacularly fail in epic style as government activity in most other places. The region has a lot of its own problems though.Two important traits of this society and why this model works there : (and wish Bernie will understand this)

1. low corruption - that is an important factor too whenever collective systems are in place and Scandinavia tends to score top marks in transparency
2. mindsat of society - Scandinavians are traditionally less focused on consumption and individualism than say Americans and that means that any issues that relate to their standing in society and giving up some freedom for the sake of organization is not seen as a terrible issue in itself. That comes from the fact that Scandinavia is an awful place to live if you happen to be a primitive pre-industrial society.All those countries were very poor until the end of XIX century and the beginning of XX century wasnt easy on Europe either so culturally they are more restrained with regards to material wealth.

 

[Total Power]

Colonial subjugation is a result of capitalism, not a vanguard to warn against critiquing it.

Sorry Mofra, you are jumping the gun IMHO.

The problem with statements like this is that both of these terms are very vague. European colonialism had multiple motivations, starting with easier access to India, plunder in the case of gold from the New World, and later on as the capitalist economy got going sourcing raw materials/slave labor to provide Sugar and Cotton. You could add to this Settler colonialism, but that also had very different sets of motivations: fleeing religious persecution in the case of the Puritans, cash crops in the case of the early south, and sending convict in the case of Australia.

were any of these things fundamentally new in world history? Conquest itself is as old history, as is slavery. the Romans obviously practiced both of these things, as did the Arabs. The Arab conquests brought with them Arab settlers, and for many of the lands they conquered acculturation into Arab culture. Same with the Turkish conquest of Anatolia.

if your talking about capitalism, different people will have different definitions, and it's not clear that there's some fundamental economic system that emerged in Europe in 1500 that had never existed before. There had been extensive trade going on over the silk rode for millennia. The purpose of the early explorers was to get to India so that they could buy goods there and sell them in Europe and avoid all the middlemen and costs of that come with shipping goods overland. There had also been sea trade routes in the Indian Ocean and in the Mediterranean going back millennia. The only thing the Portuguese did different there was to sail directly from Western Europe to India.

In terms of industry, China and India had been centers of production for textiles, spices, pottery etc. since antiquity. That was the reason Europeans wanted to get there. No, they didn't have coal and consumer goods were much more luxury items, but then you're talking about the industrial revolution which is much more of a specific technological thing rather than an economic system.

So the answer to this kind of claim in my opinion is not that it's true or false, but that it depends on two ideas which are very vaguely defined.

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

The socialism and free money = Yes
The police lockdown and restrictions = Bad.

Seems commies cant have one without the other.

Where is it written though that socialism MUST be authoritarian in nature?

 

[Run n Spread]

Where is it written though that socialism MUST be authoritarian in nature?

It isn't. But it relies on the goodwill of others when negotiating. You been in a negotiation of late?

Even the Bolshies of 1921 conceded they were too early for socialism and so are we.

 

[Squarehammer]

The socialism and free money = Yes
The police lockdown and restrictions = Bad.

Seems commies cant have one without the other.

despite being there has never been a successful socilist government the commoes still thinks its successful

 

[Run n Spread]

despite being there has never been a successful socilist government the commoes still thinks its successful

Ohh well The hardcore 1980s Neo Con Thatcherites still think that is successful. What will be will be.

 

[Malifice]

I live in a representative democracy. The representative bit actually means something.
Adding "liberal" to it to make it "liberal democracy" doesn't change its substance or form.

Yes, it does. Democracies are not inherently liberal.

A Communist democracy certainly wouldnt be. Ditto a Nationalist democracy, or a Fundamentalist one.

 

[Total Power]

If you take capitalism to its natural conclusion it results in monopolies.

without the support of the state, which has been involved in every known monopoly of any scale, a monopoly cannot engage in the behavior typically associated with a predatory monopoly. The state enables monopolies in a number of ways such as:

1. No-bid contracts, therefore eliminating market competition and increasing costs.
2. Regulatory capture, allowing large companies to effectively eliminate any potential new competition by creating artificially high barriers to entry.
3. Land favoritism, often in the form of fixing land prices to be artificially low (and available for purchase exclusively to the large company) and/or using eminent domain.
4. In extreme cases, the state has outright prevented competition to protect a monopoly.
5. Limits on liability, and caps on subsequent damages.

etc etc.

this is why monopolies tend to arise in industries that are the most highly regulated: banking, drugs, media, health, finance, etc., and tend to appear much less in those that are the least regulated: tech, retail, sadly not much else. Company A that has a virtual monopoly can spend way less money simply buying off bureaucrats and erecting barriers to entry in the form of regulations, than they would have to spend actually, you know... competing. It's a simple cost/benefit analysis, and the costs of being in a regulated industry are simply buried by the benefits. If you're already at the top, that is.

 

[Caesar]

this is why monopolies tend to arise in industries that are the most highly regulated: banking, drugs, media, health, finance, etc., and tend not to in those that are the least regulated: tech, retail, sadly not much else.

You’re kidding, right?

 

[Total Power]

You’re kidding, right?

I should have said "less prone to monopolies". My bad.

 

[Gethelred]

Words are defined by who uses them. Socialism is a failed experiment that's why numpties like Bernie Sanders try to claim Nordic Model is socialism it's a bunch of ******* .

socialism in Scandinavia didn't work. particularly during the 50's to the 70's there and in many other countries in Europe a lot of services were nationalized, new regulations introduced and taxes were blown sky high. It simply did not work and most countries introduced reforms during the 80's and the 90's. Shortly after the war Sweden was one of the richest countries in Europe thanks to their staying out of both wars. However because of their pioneering in socialist experimentation they lost that position and ended up with a serious economic crisis in the 80's .

As i said in my reply to Shadow, uncapped capitalism doesn't exist, what exists is a medium of free exchange. If look at the Economic Freedom Index you will find that countries like Denmark and Sweden rank far higher than the US. It is also known as welfare capitalism. Capitalism where the state is relatively more active in the economy. The Scandinavian countries are capitalist countries which have produced large, successful corporations like Ikea.

so in short - the actual "socialism" did not work in Scandinavia whenever and wherever it was introduced as it never worked anywhere. What "works" there is a curious mixture of government intervention and free markets but it really doesn't "work" as much as doesn't spectacularly fail in epic style as government activity in most other places. The region has a lot of its own problems though.Two important traits of this society and why this model works there : (and wish Bernie will understand this)

1. low corruption - that is an important factor too whenever collective systems are in place and Scandinavia tends to score top marks in transparency
2. mindsat of society - Scandinavians are traditionally less focused on consumption and individualism than say Americans and that means that any issues that relate to their standing in society and giving up some freedom for the sake of organization is not seen as a terrible issue in itself. That comes from the fact that Scandinavia is an awful place to live if you happen to be a primitive pre-industrial society.All those countries were very poor until the end of XIX century and the beginning of XX century wasnt easy on Europe either so culturally they are more restrained with regards to material wealth.

I'd go one further; communist/socialist systems cannot work in a contemporary context. Yet.

We need to advance to the point where the necessities are covered simply and in an automated manner; at that point, food and shelter can be provided by the state as a standard. From that point, people can 'opt in' to society when it suits them; some within it will always do so, keen to share the fruits of their labour with all, and some will not. Those who are capable and eager will be promoted and will try to progress us; people seek meaning and status.

It would require reconfiguring of our society, and it would require a radical rethink of what we value in terms of individual achievement and community, but having said that it's not such a stretch from where we are now. What was Bertrand of Chartres line about standing on the shoulders of giants?

They've done the work for us, ideologically and technologically. We just need to be better able to apply it and economize it.

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

Very good article here.

Long, but very good.

‘We can’t go back to normal’: how will coronavirus change the world?

The long read: Times of upheaval are always times of radical change. Some believe the pandemic is a once-in-a-generation chance to remake society and build a better future. Others fear it may only make existing injustices worse

www.theguardian.com