Hi again Hyroglyphx, sorry for the delay.
I have always found it fascinating to see socialists and capitalists arguing, when their main reactions are the same. Both seem to have virtuous reasons behind their philosophies, the only difference is how they perceive it. Both see it as an issue of fairness, but they interpret what is fair differently.
Agreed, and also with the issue of the purpose of government. I ran across this replying to Faith:
Politics - Wikipedia
quote:
Politics is a process by which groups of people make collective decisions. The term is generally applied to behavior within civil governments, but politics has been observed in other group interactions, including corporate, academic, and religious institutions. It consists of "social relations involving authority or power"[1] and refers to the regulation of a political unit,[2] and to the methods and tactics used to formulate and apply policy.[3]
If we take this as the basic reality - that Politics is a process by which groups of people make collective decisions - then we see that proper government represents the will of the people, curiously synonymous with the precepts of the founding fathers.
In
Free Market= Anarchy Economics; Big Buiseness = Oligarcies we discussed the similarity of major corporations and oligarchies like china and the old USSR, where decisions are made by the few for the benefit of the few. Meanwhile we like to think that democracy is a good way to run a country, but then say that an oligarchy is a good way to run a company?
Socialists tend to view it as have's and have not's. If you are wealthy and the other is not, ...
And yet there can be rich people with socialist leanings (eg Warren Buffet), people concerned with what they perceive to be fair deals.
... apparently because the have not's have some reason for being a have not, generally because of some disparity that is beyond their control and the playing field was never fair: race, gender, poor, etc that invariably continues in a cycle.
Or that, in the terms of Marx (and the thread topic?), that people have not been paid a fair share of the product for their labor in making the product.
Government can rectify this situation to a general degree by having a progressive tax system that taxes those that benefit most from the capitalist system more than those that benefit the least, and by providing a basic level of services for the general population. This returns to society as a whole the monies "stolen" (in Faith parlance) from the workers in not being paid a fair share for their labor.
Me being a libertarian, you and I more than likely agree on many social issues. From this aspect most libertarians tend to deviate away from conservatives and gravitate more with liberals. Where libertarians tend to part ways and sort of rejoin with conservatives is in the sphere of economics.
And yet economics benefits from more people being more active players. If a large portion of the population is just barely getting by, then they don't have much ability to participate in the economy beyond necessities.
My sense of fairness comes from allowing people to choose their own destiny. If you do well for yourself, then you shouldn't be expected to pick up the slack for those who didn't. For instance, my daughter's concept of fairness, in my opinion, is very skewed. If my son has earned something, her sense of fairness is also receiving the same thing on that occasion, apparently just for gracing us with her presence! Her rationale is that if one has, the other should have too. My theory is that both should have the equal opportunity to earn in every instance, but sometimes they both don't earn it (whatever it may be at the time) simultaneously. I'm not then going to reward her just for existing. There is no principle in that.
My younger brother always wanted the same things at the same time that I and my older brother had, even though he was 4 years younger (while Xongsmith & I are 1 year apart) and not wait 4 years for his share. This is natural. The problem comes in making sure that when the time comes that your daughter does what your son did that she is similarly rewarded.
The basic problem I have with welfare is that not only is there no incentive to earn more and improve the situation, but that there are active programs that punish this: you lose more benefits than you gain until you can earn a significant wage. This is counter-productive and acts to keep people on welfare rather than allow them to get into productive employment.
While I certainly feel sympathetic for all the employees that lost their jobs (I've been there too), the reality is that most businesses do not succeed. Knowing that, I view it how I view death. Death is sad, there are no two ways about it. No one likes it, no one wishes upon anyone. Despite that, being realistic we know it is an inevitability.
Likewise there are government programs that punish small business more than large corporations. In marxist terms such businesses are
petit bourgeoisie and their fate is to be melded into the proletariate:
Marxism - Wikipedia
quote:
Petit bourgeoisie are those who employ labourers, but who also work, i.e. small business owners, peasant landlords, trade workers et al. Marxism predicts that the continual reinvention of the means of production eventually would destroy the petit bourgeoisie, degrading them from the middle class to the proletariat.
This is what we see, with small businesses going bankrupt and dissolved or being bought up by large corporations (ie what happened to the company that I worked for).
Because you view this as an inevitable result of doing business doesn't make it right. In the terms of Marx it is also viewed as inevitable, but this is due to the essential unfairness inherent in capitalism, rather than something to just accept.
Personally, I buy as little as possible from big corporations and support local business as much as possible.
My concept of regulation and the government's role is the job of mediating, making sure companies are playing by the rules, watching for illegal transactions, etc. Someone needs to be there to protect citizens from fraud and to keep the hucksters who dupe people accountable for their actions.
Where this gets muddy is when govt makes the rules and decides what is and what is not illegal: liquor is legal to purchase, but mjane is not.
I agree that the aim of socialism is to take the best of those two worlds. While I still remain skeptical of socialism (because of my fundamental belief that as government increases, personal freedoms decrease) I am obviously not blind. I can see that most European nations exist as socialists and in general do very well for itself.
It's a matter of social self interest, and if politics, as a process by which groups of people make collective decisions means that proper government represents the will of the people, this would inevitably result in good govt enforcing social self interest by incorporating social programs and laws that maximize benefit for the whole of society rather than for individuals within that society. This may occur by the evolution of government rather than imposed by revolution, as Marx suggested. Personally I would prefer an evolutionary approach over a revolutionary one, as the results are more likely to be in the desired direction.
Enjoy.
™ Version 4.2