[AndyH]

I'm hoping some of you can answer a question that has been bothering me. I consider myself a socialist because I believe it is the greatest expression of freedom and the best way to organize a society. However, in order for it to be ethically implemented, every individual it affects would have to consent to it. Consider social issues - I have always had a great deal of repect for politicians who say things like, "I am a Christian and I oppose abortion, but I will not legislate my faith," meaning they will vote pro-choice to preserve the freedom of others. Now if you apply this concept to economics - well, we as socialists are essentially just as bad as Christians who impose their ideology on all of society. We essentially hope to legislate our "faith" in socialism on all individuals.

This is why I respect free-market libertarians, though the society they describe is just an absolutely awful dystopia (I mean, read their thread on education and the ideas they are excited about - private investors paying for children to go to school, in return for a portion of their wages...basically children becoming indentured servants before they are capable of understanding what that means). Now I'm not talking about the libertarians who oppose taxes but still drive on public roads and send their children to public schools, but the consistent ones like Rothbard, Rand, etc. The society they envision is horrible, but they are at least consistent, and have the right to promote their views.

Which leads me to this dilemma - as socialists, we seek to transform society into our vision, but it is naive and utopian to think that every individual will agree with socialist policies. For every socialist there is a libertarian, most of whom have well-thought out, logical counterpoints to all the points we make, and will likely never be converted. So why should they have to live in a socialist society, if all of them, (even their poor and disadvantaged), choose not to? I fully sympathize with people who question why they should pay taxes, assuming they would willingly give up the public services taxes provide.

The capitalist "utopia" libertarians envision could never exist in a socialist society, so it is hard to argue with them when they say we are taking away their freedoms. But perhaps a socialist commune could survive in a capitalist society....is that what we should strive for? I think not, but I can come to no other solution. Most socialists are pro-civil liberties though...we want people of all religions to live and worship freely in a secular society, but economically it seems we are no better than the religious fundamentalists who seek to impose their morals on all of society.

Thoughts?

[Cartertonian]

Hello AndyH. We have an AndyS (or rather, I think he styles himself 'Andys') who appears to be a rabid libertarian by the way.

Welcome to PoFo. You may like to make a post in the Lobby, to introduce yourself more formally.

[robertcwash]

Great first post; and welcome to the forums .

I think you've highlighted the irony of the dilemma: it seems that the only ethical path to socialism is found within the libertarian framework.

(ie. If a country were established under a libertarian framework, it would be possible to voluntarily create and join socialists territories without a mass violation of rights.)

[Figlio di Moros]

If socialism is the ethical system, why can it not be instituted by force? While I disagree with socialism in nearly every respect, it seems a bit asinine to assert that capitalism is a system held in place by the forceful maintainance of the private control of the means of production, and then assert that we have to respect the wishes of thse who intend to maintain their private ownership of the means of production. If murder is the forceful ending of a persons right to life, then is the forceful prevention of murder immoral?

If, however, you mean to ask for the most peacable means of conversion to a socialist system, or the one least likely to create a violent opposition, then it's an entirely different question. I'm sure socialists could create a plan for a peaceable conversion to a socialist economy, but, of course, that'd require an enduring, arduious(sp.) democratic battle.

[yourstruly]

@ Andy -

You seem to be an unusually intelligent, open-minded person, and I'd love at some point to see the reasons you have decided a free-market system would be dystopian.

The fundamental institution of the free market is that of voluntary exchange/association, along with a minarchist government system that prevents coercion and fraud.

It is the libertarian belief that strictly upholding the right to property and imposing none but the most basic regulations of the market will create an environment such that institutional incentives channel self-interest in socially productive ways. The need to persuade someone to give you their property in exchange for a service (as opposed to lobbying the government to rig the system in your favor) forces the greedy capitalistic types that leftists so despise to find efficient and innovative ways to help other people.

However, even if you disagree with the above characterization of libertarianism, you may still find that it is the system for you. As has been noted, there is nothing preventing a group of like-minded individuals from creating a socialist commune or even a miniature socialist state within a free-market system, as long as such an organization does not coercively obstruct its members from leaving the organization at will. It is in fact a common libertarian belief that welfare might exist on the freemarket as a kind of non-profit collective insurance: all members of a specific welfare group would pay a monthly rate into a big pot of money, which would then be distributed according to the rules of the organization to those who need it most in any given year. With many such groups competing for membership, a number of efficient, well-managed groups are very likely to arise in a free-market simply from the mutually beneficial nature of voluntary exchange in systems where private property rights are guaranteed.

A free-market system would allow competing types of economic organization to coexist. One could REALLY see, dynamically, which type of economic organization was superior if both were present in a society at the same time. It is the free society, however, that must be the larger picture here, as the socialist state prohibits competing forms of organization from being tested within it.

[Julian]

so what is the moral jsutification for a society to instruct any of it citizens to do anything against his preference ?

I suppose that the first point is that by joining society people are expected to conform to certain rules which make the maintenance of that society possible

so everybody uses roads, disposes of waste, and all may expects their neighbours to help put out fires on their land. in return for these rights there must be obligations - perhaps to pay a tithe - perhaps to respect the property of others

the political issue is who makes the decisions about right and responsibilities

it is not true that in a free market capitalist society - there are no rights and responsibilities. no society exists without rules. the poor are constantly reminded that the rich have a right to property, to copyright, to patents, to land.

socialists believe that the rules we abide by as individuals should be determined within a framework of equality and fairness

[lucky]

Now I'm not talking about the libertarians who oppose taxes but still drive on public roads and send their children to public schools, but the consistent ones like Rothbard, Rand, etc.

Rothbard and Rand didn't drive on public roads? I doubt it.

There is nothing inconsistent about being politically against some policy and yet taking advantage of the things provided by the policy as long as it is in place. When one opposes a policy it does not necessarily imply that he or she thinks the policy provides no useful benefits whatsoever, only that the benefits are not worth the costs.

For example, I believe the mortgage interest tax deduction is a bad policy, but I will make sure to take that deduction on my tax form when I take out my mortgage. One is not inconsistent with the other.

[Social_Critic]

Well andy, the answer is you can't. Which explains why socialist systems degenerate into corrupt tyrannies ruled by party oligarchies, and eventually, as socialism proves itself to be an economic failure, migrate to become fascist states.

I'm quite experienced in this area, I just left Venezuela, where socialism is being implemented by destroying democracy and abusing human rights.

[El Gilroy]

You can offer those who refuse to live under socialist conditions the option to move elsewhere. Give them some land, and what they need to make a living.

IRL, it would probably have to be the other way around.

[grassroots1]

If socialism is the ethical system, why can it not be instituted by force? While I disagree with socialism in nearly every respect, it seems a bit asinine to assert that capitalism is a system held in place by the forceful maintainance of the private control of the means of production, and then assert that we have to respect the wishes of thse who intend to maintain their private ownership of the means of production. If murder is the forceful ending of a persons right to life, then is the forceful prevention of murder immoral?

Exactly. I see no reason to respect the desires of those who wish to hold onto their wealth at all costs. If they are unwilling to contribute to a society that shares its resources in the form of providing universal health care and education, then I have no qualms about the forcible taking of that wealth at the penalty of criminal prosecution. This is how it's done in every system that exists inin the world, right now, as far as I know.

[El Gilroy]

Oh well, since everyone is being all gruff and things in here, I'll just chime in after all.

Land cannot be owned. Finite resources cannot be owned. Everything else that still falls under "means of production" will not be owned, but used by the collective. Anyone refusing to relinquish his assets that count as means of production, or as non-ownable, will have to do so by force of arms, since their right to material wealth beyond their immediate necessities does not exist.

Case closed. Iron-Fisted Socialism for the win.

[Social_Critic]

Gilroy:

The interesting observation I can make is that, after the iron fisted socialism is implemented, things start to head south, corruption gets worse, the human rights abuses used to implement the system continue, and workers' rights erode (because the government becomes the employer). Eventually, as the ruling "socialist" party oligarchs realize their system is a failure, they start migrating towards capitalism, but try to do so while remaining in power.

The process begins by inviting foreign multinationals to participate in joint ventures with government owned corporations (they are oligarchs, can't afford to allow a native entrepeneurial class to emerge because it may become too powerful). Then they realize THEY can become the entrepeneurial class, and relax the rules, moving slowly towards capitalism with a twist: the socialist (communist, worker's, whatever) party has to remain in power at all costs, and any capitalist enterprise which emerges has to toe the party line.

The concentration of power, and the emerging layers of red tape lead to enormous corruption. The lack of a legal system and inability for people to vote the bums out put the system into it's next transitional form: national socialism, fascism, with a ruling oligarchy of "communist party officials" and their relatives and friends.
The next step, of course, is revolution, and the people rise against the bums and toss them out.

[El Gilroy]

And that's where "infinite revolution", or whatever it's called, comes from.

[grassroots1]

Also I'm not sure why taxation with the threat of force necessarily requires a police state. I can see it being true if what is being advocated is a violent takeover and full expropriation of the means of production, but what I envision is a movement on the grassroots level, securing things like education and health care (themselves enormously significant steps on the road toward a democratic society), and then securing other things in the future: environmental regulation, means of production, etc. Some would probably scoff at that and call it reformism and it is a watered-down form of socialism, in a way.

[Social_Critic]

Grassroots, once you get into "means of production" then you get into communism marxist style. And this invariably leads to economic failure, corruption, tyranny, and really low quality blenders and other products. It just doesn't work, son. It has so many fundamental flaws, it has always failed. And it has caused a lot of economic destruction, and led to some really ugly regimes. And I mean really ugly. Awful. Nightmarish. Unfortunately for me, I've had the bad luck of living in communist regimes in the past, so I speak from personal experience.

[grassroots1]

To be honest my fear of those type of regimes is why I emphasize universal health care and education... like I said I find those to be the most important steps on the road to a genuinely democratic, educated, healthy society. Maybe in a society like that, direct democracy and democratic control over the means of production could work.

And I'm sure you'll find someone here willing to argue for expropriation of the means of production and a fullblown revolution.

[Social_Critic]

What do you mean by "democratic control over the means of production"?

[grassroots1]

I mean a situation where the people as a whole govern production, to some extent. I see environmental regulation as one form of control, I see government-provided education and health care as another form. Down the road, maybe these could extend, but I wouldn't want for that to happen in an undemocratic society. I see the problem today as one of centralized control, and I see the solution to be democratic control.

[Social_Critic]

Interesting point of view, as well as nomenclature. I would call regulation regulation, rather than "democratic control". Your term is too vague for my taste. Extending "democratic control" - I assume this really means state control over the means of production is a fairly accepted idea. This control is exercised via laws, regulations, taxes, and so on and so forth. My suggestion is you go back to the drawing board and figure out if all you want to do is regulate private enterprise a bit more efficiently, or whether you want to run the US as if it were India in the 1960's (a big failure). Or whether you want the socialist system implemented by Castro in Cuba (another big failure). Or whether you want to implement the adhoc socialism mixed with kleptocratic fascism Chavez calls "Socialism of the 21st century".

[eugenekop]

Exactly. I see no reason to respect the desires of those who wish to hold onto their wealth at all costs. If they are unwilling to contribute to a society that shares its resources in the form of providing universal health care and education, then I have no qualms about the forcible taking of that wealth at the penalty of criminal prosecution. This is how it's done in every system that exists inin the world, right now, as far as I know.

So if libertarians create their own state, you will attack them, take their wealth and redistribute it? If not, then what's the difference between enforcing your lifestyle on people who live in another state, or in your state? After all its only a matter of declaration. It doesn't really matter if its called a libertarian state or a libertarian county. In both cases what you are suggesting is imperialism.

Great first post; and welcome to the forums .

I think you've highlighted the irony of the dilemma: it seems that the only ethical path to socialism is found within the libertarian framework.

(ie. If a country were established under a libertarian framework, it would be possible to voluntarily create and join socialists territories without a mass violation of rights.)

A completely full socialistic state can be easily constructed in a completely full libertarian state, just by using the power of contract. The opposite is of course impossible.