Korean Job Discussion Forums :: View topic

Speak Korean Now!

Teach English Abroad and Get Paid to see the World!

Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"

FAQ

Memberlist

Usergroups

Profile

Ayn Rand, welfare queen
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 ... 16, 17, 18 ... 30, 31, 32 Next

Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author

Message

chellovek

Joined: 29 Feb 2008

Posted: Sun Feb 13, 2011 6:57 pm Post subject:

Gwangjuboy wrote:

visitorq wrote:

They absolutely are socialist. It's not an all-or-nothing term, it comes in degrees. Socialism is any government intervention in the economy (ie. collectivism); the antithesis of free market capitalism.

So presumably, even a government that limits its involvement in the economy to border policing is socialist then, at least according to this definition, as this constitutes 'interference' in the labour market.

Look at Ron Paul for example; he backed the construction of a fence across the US border with Mexico and other tougher immigration policies, so does that make him a socialist? Well, his position is certainly at odds with Milton Friedman who suggested that the US should open its borders.

Of course, there are also intellectuals who disagree with your definiton of socialism. Chomsky for example argued that there should be a degree of worker control or ownership over the means of production in order for there to be socialism.

Hasn't this argument been had before? I tried introducing our libertarian chums to the term "Dirigisme" as a possibly more suitable term for state involvement than Socialism...but it didn't seemed as ideologically sexy.

Socialism is a specific political, economic, and social philosophy that utilises the state as means to a specific political, economic, and social end- namely a "fairer" society and all the rest...securing for the worker the fruits of his labour, etc. Not all state intervention necessarily pursues that aim, it seems to be some logical blind-spot.

It might be said-
"All Socialism utilises state intervention but not all state intervention is Socialist."

Some of these libertarian types in my view seem to fall into an association fallacy such as this-

"All dogs have four legs; my cat has four legs. Therefore, my cat is a dog"

or if you prefer a more formal treatment-

Premise: A is a B
Premise: A is also a C
Conclusion: Therefore, all Bs are Cs

Koveras

Joined: 09 Oct 2008

Posted: Sun Feb 13, 2011 9:50 pm Post subject:

chellovek wrote:

Socialism is a specific political, economic, and social philosophy that utilises the state as means to a specific political, economic, and social end- namely a "fairer" society and all the rest...securing for the worker the fruits of his labour, etc. Not all state intervention necessarily pursues that aim, it seems to be some logical blind-spot.

Yes, very specific. Smile

Actually, it might be worthwhile for us to really define socialism, so here's my input, along with a few pot-shots on libertarians.

Any definition of socialism - and this is something many libertarians ignore - needs to take into account its historical context. It seems to have arisen mostly ad hoc in the context of the new 'nation-state' system of the 17th and 18th centuries, in reaction to the increasingly free markets. Things which previously had a more fixed and social significance, like land, labour, and money, were liquefied by new territorially-defined central governments to make way for capitalism.

That particular fact bears repeating: the fact, in opposition to certain libertarian fantasies, is that the free market was engineered by centralized governments. At least some of the initial socializations were organic, 'grass-roots' counter-measures, irruptions of the ancien regime, that served to humanize the revolution of pure capitalism.

These first counter-measures eventually developed into full-blown socialism. One should keep in mind that socialism now is an ideology, as the suffix attests. The term can't properly be applied to anything outside it's historical and geographical purview: basically the modern era, and mostly in the West. This is why the dogma of capitalism versus socialism is so limiting and distorting.

visitorq

Joined: 11 Jan 2008

Posted: Mon Feb 14, 2011 12:22 am Post subject:

Gwangjuboy wrote:

visitorq wrote:

Interesting point, but I wouldn't say that's really economic intervention. Border policing may have an indirect impact on the economy (just as enforcing laws against fraud and theft would do), but calling it an intervention in the same vein as imposing tariffs is a bit of a stretch I think

In terms of labour market intervention strict border control is arguably no different in principle to other forms of protectionism - in my opinion at least. I think there are cases when labour (internally) is more disadvantaged by open borders than the absence of wage floors.

Unless you argue that citizenship is a requisite for being part of the labor market in the first place. If you were talking about some kind of a head tax on foreign workers, then that'd be straightforward, but I don't really see enforcement of immigration laws (which have a much wider implications than just economic ones) to be a direct intervention into the economy (though at the same time I don't dispute it does affect the economy).

visitorq

Joined: 11 Jan 2008

Posted: Mon Feb 14, 2011 12:35 am Post subject:

chellovek wrote:

I have no problem with term dirigisme, though I would say it falls under the wider umbrella of socialism.

Quote:

You say it is a specific philosophy, and yet you haven't provided a specific definition. A "fair" society is about the vaguest thing you could say.

Quote:

It might be said-
"All Socialism utilises state intervention but not all state intervention is Socialist."

Some of these libertarian types in my view seem to fall into an association fallacy such as this-

"All dogs have four legs; my cat has four legs. Therefore, my cat is a dog"

or if you prefer a more formal treatment-

Premise: A is a B
Premise: A is also a C
Conclusion: Therefore, all Bs are Cs

I never said "all state intervention is socialist", I said state intervention in the economy (esp. collectivization of wealth by force) is socialist.

chellovek

Joined: 29 Feb 2008

Posted: Mon Feb 14, 2011 12:49 am Post subject:

visitorq wrote:

chellovek wrote:

I have no problem with term dirigisme, though I would say it falls under the wider umbrella of socialism.

Quote:

You say it is a specific philosophy, and yet you haven't provided a specific definition. A "fair" society is about the vaguest thing you could say.

Quote:

I never said "all state intervention is socialist", I said state intervention in the economy (esp. collectivization of wealth by force) is socialist.

Yes, that is what I am saying, not all state intervention in the economy is Socialist. It can be characterised as such if it is used in the pursuit of idenifiably Socialist ends. As such, this is why Dirgisme isn't Socialism- because it is intervention in the economy but not directed towards Socialist ends. Socialism is ultimately some particular ends to which the state is considered a means. When the state is used to that end, the state inervention is Socialist. When it isn't, it is not Socialist, hence why I proffer the term Dirigiste.

Yes my deifiniton offered of Socialism is deliberately vague- people have been banging and scratching their heads about what Socialism is and how it ought to be brought about for over a century now. Forests of trees of trees have been pulped in pursuit of that debate and I'm sure as hell not going to get entangled in it, even if I was deskwarming!

visitorq

Joined: 11 Jan 2008

Posted: Mon Feb 14, 2011 12:53 am Post subject:

Koveras wrote:

That particular fact bears repeating: the fact, in opposition to certain libertarian fantasies, is that the free market was engineered by centralized governments. At least some of the initial socializations were organic, 'grass-roots' counter-measures, irruptions of the ancien regime, that served to humanize the revolution of pure capitalism.

Sorry, but this is completely nonsensical... free markets cannot be engineered, by definition.

Quote:

These first counter-measures eventually developed into full-blown socialism. One should keep in mind that socialism now is an ideology, as the suffix attests. The term can't properly be applied to anything outside it's historical and geographical purview: basically the modern era, and mostly in the West. This is why the dogma of capitalism versus socialism is so limiting and distorting.

Socialism was funded from the outset by international bankers (whom it benefits the most). Ex. the Fabian Society in England (whose members swell the ranks of the Royal Institute of Foreign Affairs) has had close ties with the banking elite since the start.

mises

Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired

Posted: Mon Feb 14, 2011 5:32 am Post subject:

Quote:

Sorry, but this is completely nonsensical... free markets cannot be engineered, by definition.

It is not useful to use the term 'free markets'. There are no free markets. We have markets that are constrained to varying degrees.

The state has facilitated the growth of markets.

Fat_Elvis

Joined: 17 Aug 2006
Location: In the ghetto

Posted: Mon Feb 14, 2011 6:44 am Post subject:

visitorq wrote:

Intellectual fringe? That's cute. There are tens of millions of Americans (and growing) who share most of my views. In fact, in many regards I'd say I'm in the majority. Oh, and Ron Paul just won the CPAC poll once again Very Happy

To be honest I doubt a lot of those Americans who say they share your views fully appreciate the cuts to government that Ron Paul and his ilk are proposing. Don't get me wrong, I think the USA does need to reduce it's deficit eventually and cuts are inevitable. The problem is the American public doesn't really have the appetite for meaningful budget cuts

http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Columns/2011/02/04/Voter-Ignorance-Threatens-Deficit-Reduction.aspx

and often don't even realise they are the recipient of government support

http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Columns/2011/02/11/GOP-Cuts-Budget-with-an-Axe-Instead-of-a-Scalpel.aspx

Hence we have seen signs like this at Tea Party rallies

http://tinyurl.com/4awzb2b

And as for Ron Paul winning the CPAC poll again, wow, well done on stacking a conservative conference with your supporters. However even he can't say no to a little government funding, as he applied for stimulus funding,

http://www.publicintegrity.org/blog/entry/2538/

stimulus funding from a bill he voted against saying it would turn the recession into a depression, which incidentally hasn't happened yet. This is why greater deficit reductions have been seen during Democrat rather than Republican administrations, as Republicans simply reduce the tax base but can't bring themselves to cut spending.

Fat_Elvis

Joined: 17 Aug 2006
Location: In the ghetto

Posted: Mon Feb 14, 2011 6:51 am Post subject: Re: ...

Gwangjuboy wrote:

Nowhere Man wrote:

I think it is: "Big Government" is a product of being bought off. The Rand/Mises solution is to curtail government, but the solution works as easily in the opposite direction: get business out of government.

Bingo.

That's why I think it's laughable when someone like Sergio Stefanuto calls for a capitalist plutocracy. I look at somewhere like the USA and think, "Isn't it a plutocracy already?"

visitorq

Joined: 11 Jan 2008

Posted: Mon Feb 14, 2011 8:30 am Post subject:

mises wrote:

Quote:

Sorry, but this is completely nonsensical... free markets cannot be engineered, by definition.

It is not useful to use the term 'free markets'. There are no free markets. We have markets that are constrained to varying degrees.

The state has facilitated the growth of markets.

I realize there are almost no real life examples of truly free markets (which is another reason why the claim that they have been "engineered" is absurd), but some are still freer than others. A truly free market economy may be only theoretical, but given how freer markets have performed compared to less free ones, it's still something to strive for.

And how exactly has the state facilitated in the growth of markets? (by which I mean in ways that are both beneficial and that could not have been achieved without state intervention)

Kuros

Joined: 27 Apr 2004

Posted: Mon Feb 14, 2011 9:29 am Post subject: Re: ...

Fat_Elvis wrote:

Gwangjuboy wrote:

Nowhere Man wrote:

Bingo.

That's why I think it's laughable when someone like Sergio Stefanuto calls for a capitalist plutocracy. I look at somewhere like the USA and think, "Isn't it a plutocracy already?"

Have you been following this thread? (A genuine question, its long and I don't expect you to have read every word). Some of us have been arguing that state accretion of massive amounts of funds leads irrevocably to plutocracy. As bloated and over-sized as American military spending may be, the bulk of the budget is devoted to welfare programs, and yet, when the economy is on the fritz, its the banksters and home-borrowers who get the bailouts, not social security or the middle-class.

Please, social liberals, please understand that each of your presentations is over-reliant on the capability of historically weak measures such as campaign finance reform and regulatory bodies to combat perennial forces such as the iron law of oligarchy and the disproportionate influence of the affluent. Sergio and Visitorq are loud and proud, but less than representative of the full spectrum of the fiscally conservative/socially liberal mindset. Many of us turned libertarians simply out of skepticism towards social liberal initiatives, reinforced time and again by failure after failure.

On the other hand

Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue

Posted: Mon Feb 14, 2011 10:09 am Post subject:

I've pretty much abandoned this long-lost bastard child thread of mine, but I thought people here might be interested in this... Atlas Shrugs movie trailer

Gwangjuboy

Joined: 08 Jul 2003
Location: England

Posted: Mon Feb 14, 2011 10:11 am Post subject: Re: ...

Kuros wrote:

please understand that each of your presentations is over-reliant on the capability of historically weak measures such as campaign finance reform and regulatory bodies to combat perennial forces such as the iron law of oligarchy and the disproportionate influence of the affluent.

I think that most people are pragmatic enough to understand that corruption is unavoidable within any power structure, but this is not an excuse to let the beast run amok. Take corporate campaign contributions; there are practical steps that can be taken to reduce their nefarious hold over US electoral outcomes.

In fact, this is something that both small government advocates and social liberals have to overcome if any of their political objectives are to materialse. Coprorate America still has a huge stranglehold over the US political system, and Ron Paul types are despised by its plutocrats. The 'don't tread on me' mentality scares them far more than a few lefties moralising about welfare. All those campaign funds are going to be ploughed into candidates with a solid record on the issues, sorry issue, that matters; corporate welfare. Its incredibly difficult to challenge power with those kinds of resources at its disposal. Man will have been to Mars before the kind of reform called for on this board - my own included - is seriously undertaken.

Quote:

Sergio and Visitorq are loud and proud, but less than representative of the full spectrum of the fiscally conservative/socially liberal mindset. Many of us turned libertarians simply out of skepticism towards social liberal initiatives, reinforced time and again by failure after failure.

Can you think of some social liberal initiatives that have worked? I would be genuinely suprised if you said no.

Sergio Stefanuto

Joined: 14 May 2009
Location: UK

Posted: Mon Feb 14, 2011 10:52 am Post subject:

mises wrote:

There are no free markets. We have markets that are constrained to varying degrees.

But that's not the only meaning of 'free'. Free also means being able to do something at will - namely here, to (of one's own initiative and pursuing naught but one's own private objectives) satisfy the demands of the market.

If the lack of restraint was our only definition of 'free', there would be no such thing as free agency, let alone the free market, because we are constrained quite considerably by many things beyond our control, namely genetics and the natural physical limitations of the world.

For example, if I want duck for lunch, but the menu only offers chicken, beef and pork, does it follow that I'm unfree? Unfree to eat duck at this particular restaurant, yes, but actually rendered incapable of genuinely voluntary action? And though it may be disappointing that there's no duck, there's nothing that's unfree in my submiting to eat beef instead.

Fat_Elvis wrote:

That's why I think it's laughable when someone like Sergio Stefanuto calls for a capitalist plutocracy. I look at somewhere like the USA and think, "Isn't it a plutocracy already?"

The kind of plutocracy I call for is the bottom 75% of society being legally unentitled to vote.

Koveras wrote:

Any definition of socialism - and this is something many libertarians ignore - needs to take into account its historical context. It seems to have arisen mostly ad hoc in the context of the new 'nation-state' system of the 17th and 18th centuries, in reaction to the increasingly free markets

Quite. But it was also used throughout the Cold War interchangeably with "communism", for example in East Germany and...drumroll, please:

"Obviously, sooner or later [Korea] must be reunited, by absorbing the South into socialism" (Joan Robinson, Cambridge economist in 1977)

http://www.economist.com/node/17800091

Koveras wrote:

the free market was engineered by centralized governments. At least some of the initial socializations were organic, 'grass-roots' counter-measures, irruptions of the ancien regime, that served to humanize the revolution of pure capitalism.

These first counter-measures eventually developed into full-blown socialism

Surely anyone can see that any semblance of free market capitalism is wholly incompatible with the inferior herd of humanity's propensity towards parasitism. It is far easier for the Inferior to use their numerical advantage to arrogate the wealth of the Superior than to earn an honest living via their own efforts. While the free market is the fairest (and indeed only) form of real democracy in existence - for it is nothing more than buyers and sellers meeting voluntarily (a moment-by-moment referendum on what is produced and who has it) - it is not reconcilable with democracy, where parasitism is the supreme virtue.

Democracy is a natural, inevitable thing. Free marketization, since it requires the acquiescence of the baying mob, must be imposed by true believers. Eventually, the herd may well succumb to its virtue, but not without difficulty

Last edited by Sergio Stefanuto on Mon Feb 14, 2011 11:04 am; edited 3 times in total

Kuros

Joined: 27 Apr 2004

Posted: Mon Feb 14, 2011 10:53 am Post subject: Re: ...

Gwangjuboy wrote:

Quote:

Can you think of some social liberal initiatives that have worked? I would be genuinely suprised if you said no.

The retirement programs are quite good: Social Security, 401ks, Roth IRAs. But that doesn't make FDR's political calculations on Social Security any less disgusting and cynical.

Many environmental regulations are necessary, and appropriately handled at the Federal level (you simply cannot have State commissions regulate water flow all along the Mississippi River). That doesn't make the EPA a model of efficiency or wisdom, however. National Parks and Reserves are a very early progressive innovation for which I'm grateful.

Food Stamp and Unemployment Benefit Programs are riddled with problems, but effective stimulus and necessary social welfare.

I prefer government-sponsored scientific research to exclusively private R&D reinforced by the current intellectual property rights regime. I think Sergio does, as well.

The military, although not traditionally considered a progressive institution, nevertheless offers many residents of impoverished communities good vocational and life training, and a pathway to success. This is why I prefer to expand the ranks of the military while reducing high-tech research and overseas deployment.

This list is not exclusive, its just what I could come up with on the spot.

Display posts from previous:

	Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum	All times are GMT - 8 Hours Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 ... 16, 17, 18 ... 30, 31, 32 Next
Page 17 of 32

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

TEFL International Supports Dave's ESL Cafe