Alexander Reiswich
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Hi Ed,firstly, I agree that it is conceivable for the capitalists to be ultimately better off in a socialist system (if it works as intended). But I think that realistically, and at least in the short term, it is rather clear that the wealthy capitalists would have to adapt a much less grandiose lifestyle. Isn't that actually one of the basic goals of socialism? To take away the power and wealth from the fat cat capitalists? At least that's the impression I get. As for your distinction between workers and capitalists – it does seem hopelessly simplistic in my eyes.First of all, very few workers in first world countries are "forced" to work by any common definition of the word "force". You are forced to pay your taxes, for instance, because if you don't, you will be put in prison.But you can quit and change your job fairly easily, apart from some contractual restrictions perhaps.So I suppose that you mean an economic, environmental kind of "force", which may apply to some people. However, the better and more precise word would clearly be "pressure" then.I would actually agree that there are such pressures in our society, but they also often apply to the people whom you would consider capitalists. It's not like if you become a CEO, you suddenly don't have to work and can just happily live off the labour of the poeple working under you. Also, how is renting property not working for a wage? Whether it's housing or equipment – a lot of money, time and effort goes into creating or acquiring a property. Moreover, a lot of risk is involved. If no one is interested in renting it, you're screwed.I could go on and on, but my point is that the distinction is not clear at all. Not only is there a "gradient", but a downright mixture of those defining attributes in peoples lives. A simple example is – what class does someone like a freelancer belong to? "Class interest does not differ between individuals of the same class."Same problem as above – of course people have different interests. I literally can't make any sense of that sentence. As for the term slavery as often used by socialists – as you say, there is a very clear definition for it: forced labour.Now, as I mentioned before, practically no one in a first world country is "forced" to work. It would be a worthwhile discussion to talk about pressures, but that renders the whole idea of "wage slavery" moot.On a more personal note, I find it rather offensive to people who are <i>actually</i> forced to work to be compared to the vast majority of normal workers who can change their jobs or quit work alltogether.To draw an analogy – to label our working system as slavery is about as sensible as calling the abortion of a three days old embryo "murder". It's a stretch of biblical proportions.A more fair and precise way to call it would be perhaps "exploitation", among others. That leaves me wondering why socialists would even want to use the word "slavery" in this context at all. And I can't help but think that it's for marketing purposes. "Slavery" sounds just way more emotional and alarming than everything else. Steve, I'm sorry to say but every socialist I talk to has a different emphasis on what socialists want.It's not new to someone who sees people as individuals rather than classes, though. As for your denial of ownership – I don't really want to defend property rights here, but I can't help but point out the fallacies in your argument. First of all, ownership is derived from use and the labour that went into acquiring it.For example, if I see a banana growing on a tree, I can't claim to "own" it just like that. But if I climb the tree and pick up the banana, everyone intuitively understands that it wouldn't be appropriate for you to just take away the banana from me like I did from the tree. There are many reasons as to why that is so, but suffice to say that it would be, in fact, a form of slavery, if you could just take something from me that I put time, effort and energy into acquiring. Now, the planet is not a sentient being, so it doesn't matter if I take something from it. Sure, it's possible to be "greedy" and take more than can naturally be replenished. But that's a problem for humans – again, the planet doesn't care. We're the ones who suffer, so it's in our rational interest to be careful with natural resources. Now, the forces of coercion that you talk about would be "governments", let's be clear about it.It is only through state force that the "minority class" possession you talk about is possible. Governments are tools that can be used to make people do pretty much anything – from war and genocide to indoctrination and slavery, as well as sometimes a bit of public service. Only states are capable of deciding what the public should or should not do and have the ability to enforce those edicts.But the important thing to understand is that all governments consist of mere humans, no better than you or I. This means that they can be manipulated. The "corruption" that everyone talks about is a completely predictable and logical outcome of any and every type of government. To not see that is to ignore everything we understand of human behavior.My point is – how can someone seriously believe that organizations and corporations won't try to steer the government in favour of their own interests? To use the power of the state or not use it can mean the success or failure of a company. In other words, there is a cause to your observation of those capitalists who claim ownership to this and that.It's the power of the state that pressures them into this direction by offering them an immoral deal that they can't refuse for all intents and purposes.In the absence of the force of the state, most of what you (and I) criticize about our situation would not be even possible. Not to recognize this will doom your party to repeat historys tragedies over and over again. If for instance the socialist party suddenly got into power (which, to be honest, is beyond wishful thinking) in the UK or some other similar nation, it would naturally turn out like everywhere else – it would not be a "true" socialist party. How could it possibly resist all external influences and stay completely honest to it's stated goals? Such a thing never happened in history and never will. The socialist party will be "streamlined" and forced to adapt more moderate positions. Gradually, it will become just like the old parties and some new brand of socialism will grow up to claim that it's all the capitalists fault. @Hud955: "[…] there is nothing a minority capitalist class could do to prevent a mass working class movement overturning the system."As similar things have happened historically, I can imagine that happening, however, do you really think that is a realistic possibility? I won't go into the question of resource allocation as this post is long enough as it is. As for the distinction between working class and capitalists, yours is a bit more usable than the one offered previously, although I still think it ignores many of the concerns I mentioned above (mainly, that aquiring and owning a means of production IS work and sometimes indistinguishable from any other form of labor – it's probably just the scale of it that you use to differentiate between them). As for the "objectivity" of your class interest – maybe I didn't put it clearly enough, but you affirmed what I stated by negating it.I AGREED with you that socialism has an objective position and that the values, if necessary, follow from that, but added that the individuals can have any kind of values-system (or lack thereof) that they like.However, if you really think that because socialism may have an objective position, therefore every individual socialist has an objective position, then – no offense – but that's delusional. Every socialist I talk to has a different perspective, different priorities, different approaches, different definitions and even different goals. People are individuals, not "classes".There may well be objectively an ideal class position that can be logically derived, but in practice, no single socialist will share it completely due to their varying environments and live experiences (unless you maybe indoctrinate them from early childhood). And if you think that people as individuals don't have values once they adapt socialism you are equally wrong (but you already previously said that a socialist society would not be value-free, etc. so I'm not even sure why you're negating that here). As for the value-laden terminology; you need to work on your jiu-jitsu :)Sorry to say, but using words that are inaccurate and purely appeal to moral intuition does not really suggest any hypocricy in capitalist ideology. If anything, it sounds like a contradiction in socialist ideology.However, even the rest I can't fully accept. I've heard plenty of socialists talk about reason, truth, love, etc. These terms, too, contain value judgements, without which they would become pretty much meaningless. And they can only be used by assuming that people value them.
twc and Hud955, thank you both for the input. I especially appreciate the clearness of your post Hud955, but also the information and entertaining writing style from twc.Allow me to summarize your perspective in my own (plain) words and please let me know whether they're flawed or accurate:The main goal of socialism is to put the interests of the working class above those of every other class (mainly the capitalists; i.e. the people who live off the labour of the working class) and in fact remove all classes alltogether. That is necessary because you are convinced that by doing so, society as a whole will benefit tremendously (although it would be obviously terrible for those who benefit from the current system).Now, the reason that you, say, don't try to assassinate the people who empower and facilitate the current system is not because you "value" human life or something like that, but rather because it would not be the most effective approach to achieve your main goal.Instead, you believe the surest and most reasonable approach to be an educational one; that is, informing the working class that it is in their best interest to strive towards socialism (I assume mainly by voting for the socialist party).You hold that the perhaps greatest obstacle towards your main goal is the monetary/property system, which makes it possible for some (very rich) individuals to "squeeze" the labour value out of the working class and thus perpetuate their own lavish lifestyle at the expense of the majority of poor and middle class people.Therefore it is necessary to get rid of said system in order to ensure that the "wealth" produced by the working class is evenly distributed, rather than mostly wasted for the benefit of only a few. That would be a quick and simplistic summary of the way I understand your perspective, but I hope it gets the gist of it, otherwise I would gladly be corrected.I do see quite a few problems. For instance, the simple fact that the core of government mainly consists of the "capitalist class", as I'm sure you're well aware of. So it seems incredibly unlikely that they would allow for a true socialist party to ever be elected (just as a truly capitalist party will never be elected).Or the still fairly open question of how resources would be efficiently allocated in the absence of a monetary system.Or even if it is really possible to make a clear distinction between the working and the capitalist classes.But I think these questions are better suited for another thread. So, unless I got it completely wrong, I think we have arrived at a fair answer to my main question; namely that socialism strives to adapt social values to whatever serves the purpose of attaining and advancing a classless and moneyless society. Or to put it even more simply – individual socialists can have differing and even contradictory personal values, because the only thing that connects them is their class interest (which can also differ for every individual). This explains why it can be rather confusing to read socialist writing – for instance, when they criticize bourgeois ethics from a class interest viewpoint while using the same moral terminology (slavery, robbery, etc.) from a personal values perspective ("I don't want to be a slave.", etc.).
ALB: Excellent, it seems that, perhaps surprisingly, there is not that much difference between capitalists and socialists other than the fact that former would prefer to have a means of exchange while the latter would prefer to do without.I would be happy if we (as a society) could agree not to force proponents of these two approaches to solely use either one. TheOldGreyWhistle: Well, I would pose that you can only say it's necessary because you value a fair and prosperous society.In other words, if you believed that societies should be unequal and miserable, you would probably not say that sharing with others is an economic necessity. twc: I think the social analysis you propose is pretty accurate in the sense that cycle (1) is clearly necessary if we want to have a functioning society and that it is currently indeed distorted for the benefit of those who possess capital, but do not create anything, and to the detriment of the majority of people, the actual working class.But you seem to be a little confused when it comes to values – why do you defend the "natural" cycle of social reproduction whilst attacking its corruption by the "capitalist class"? Clearly, it's because you value a functioning, positive, fair society and you are convinced that a socialist system is the proper approach towards that goal.In other words, there are values that underly your socio-economic position. They lead you towards it.And those are the values I'm interested in – not the values that people will hold once socialism has been established. At the moment, it eludes me as to why you seem to be denying to hold such basic values. But it is to your own detriment.It prevents you from seeing what is at the core of our social problems. No, it's not money, neither is it "greed" or political corruption or even capitalism itself.I can confidently say that because none of these things prevent you and every other advocate of socialism from going forth and founding a socialist city or state or even merely not participating in the current system by not using the means of exchange as devised by the state to facilitate this system.What prevents you from doing that is force.But it has nothing to do with the capitalists you criticize – apple and walmart can't force you to buy their products or work for them. But the government can (and it does).You would be completely correct in saying that the "capitalist class" has much greater influence over the government than the "working class". As such, they promote the creation of laws that benefit them, to the detriment of the general population, as you have already eloquently described.But that all would be completely irrelevant if we all weren't forced to participate in this system!You put all your concentration in fighting against the symptoms while completeley ignoring the actual cause of our problems. Earlier, I proposed as the most basic value to respect the autonomy of other people's bodies, actions and thoughts.It's something that most people agree with, as they do not, for the most time, try to enslave, rape and kill others.However, that value is practically meaningless when it comes to the government, which can at will disregard the autonomy of other people's bodies and actions and to some extent even thoughts.That is the core of our social issues. My fear is that if the socialist movement doesn't fully understand this fact, they will fail as catastrophically as all other attempts to establish socialism in history.But please do correct me if I'm wrong and the force of the state is not what actually prevents you from realizing a socialist society, as well as what makes all the economic abominations (i.e. the banking system, monopolies, debt, etc.) that we experience now even possible.
ALB, thanks for the clarifications.I'm slightly suprised that you seem to be in full agreement with the principle of non-aggression. I'm sorry to say that this is usually not obvious when I read socialist writing. I can make the friendly recommendation to put more emphasis on it. It makes everything so much simpler :)I have no more questions if you agree with the consequences of the value I suggested, other than perhaps: do you personally feel that you represent the mainstream of the socialist party, or are you in the minority in that respect? TheOldGreyWhistle: I can only repeat that we have to be more precise and rigorous with the concept of values.I find it helpful to view values as a hierarchical cascade that flows from the external world to the internal self.For example, if I value, say, expensive cars, what is the deeper value that leads me to do so? Perhaps it's because I value high-quality design. In other words, the underlying value that I really hold is that material goods which are made to be as appealling, timeless, ergonomic, durable, etc. as possible are good, while sloppily designed products that break after a year are bad. This internal value guides all my decision-making processes.My point is this: when you say that you value free access to world's resources, etc., I believe that there is a deeper underlying value, as for instance: it's good to share material goods with people who need them.I know it may sound simplistic, but I think it's really what the values you stated are based upon.I don't think that you are advocating for a system where goods should be allocated to everyone without the consent of the individuals. So if it's voluntary, then "sharing" seems like the proper term.Let me know if I'm completely wrong with this assumption. But if I'm right, then it's easy to answer your question: If you value sharing with people who need some things more than you, then just do so :)You are not constricted by your environment so long as you formulate your values properly.The reason I say that is because the whole point of values is that they are subjective. So if they are not internal, they're not really values at all, but mere desires.
ALB, don't get me wrong, I'd be happy to talk about the concept of democracy, which clearly seems to be essential for the type of socialism you advocate. But I believe that this, too, is not really the greatest value, but rather a consequence of more basic values.For example, let's imagine there are five people in a hospital. Four of them have a damaged organ which needs to be replaced lest they have no chance of survival. The fifth person only has a flesh wound. So among them, they democratically decide to kill the fifth in order to take his organs.Clearly, from a purely pragmatic point of view this would make sense. Four people live and one dies rather than four dying and one surviving.However, I don't think you would say that this is really a good thing to do.That's because in reality, you probably hold other, much deeper values than merely that every person should have an equal part of decision-making power. With that said, let me propose the greatest value that I think you hold, whether you know it or not:"The greatest value is to respect the autonomy of other people's bodies, thoughts and actions."In other words, whatever you do that increases another person's ability to freely control their bodies, thoughts and actions is moral.While everything that hinders them is immoral. You can apply this to almost any moral problem and get a satisfying result that corresponds to the intuitive moral understanding of most mentally healthy people.If you don't mind, I would like to discuss the implications of this value in relation to socialism. I was pleased to hear that there doesn't seem to be a problem in the property rights aspects. It seems that you do not really want to abolish ownership, but rather require that it is derived from usage.So for instance, it's impossible for one person to claim ownership over a large piece of land, when he or she cannot possibly use all of it in any meaningful way.Same with a factory; even if there is a founder or leader, it still is true that he or she didn't build and maintain the factory alone, hence everyone has a right to decide if the factory for instance should be closed or sold.I assume that's correct? However, there are many other parts where I'm not sure if the value I proposed would be respected.So I hope you can help me in figuring out if that is so and if yes, what other greater value could possibly override that one? First of all, since there will be no money, I assume that there will also be no taxation. Is that correct? Secondly, I assume that socialism promotes a centralized governing body with a monopoly on the use of force. Would you enforce non-violent offenses (i.e. drug-use or whatever other action that has been deemed illegal) through the police?Additionally, what if I was not in agreement with how, say, the police or justice department handles their jobs. Would it be possible for me to go ahead and create my own court or police force? Thanks, I'll be awaiting your reply! TheOldGreyWhistle: I disagree, although it may be more of an issue of definitions. Like I said, you must have a value in order to prefer a certain action or outcome. Most people are not consciously aware of the values they hold, but they still hold them within their behavior.For example, you probably value internal consistency in logical arguments. You don't need to say it though – it can be inferred from the way you construct your arguments.That's the great thing about values – they don't depend on what someone claims, but rather on how someone acts. If a politician says that he values traditional marriage, but is found out to have slept with a gay hooker, then we know that he most certainly does not really value traditional marriage.So with that in mind, capitalists wouldn't need to consciously decide anything; their actions reflect their values. That being said, I think it's preferable to be aware of the values one holds, because it is easy to switch between differing and mutually-exclusive values when it is advantegeous to do so, without noticing that one did so.Not trying to be overly provocative, but maybe if Marx concentrated more on values rather than socio-political change, then perhaps guys like Stalin, Lenin, Mao and the like wouldn't have misunderstood him so?
ALB, thanks for the clarifications!I see now that what you meant with the equality of decision-making power was the common democratic idea of every person having an equal part of decision-making power in the context of a democratic process (as the full decision-making power is divided between all individuals that are concerned by the specific issue).It may be small but it's a rather important distinction :)As this value is not exclusive to socialism, I think we can skip it then. As for the other value, I am a bit confused… Let's say I have a means of production, i.e. a printing press (let's assume I built it or got it in some other legitimate way).Can somebody else "claim" a right for the use of this machine? Does it depend on my will, as the "owner" of that good? Or does it depend on the will of say, the community in which I live or is it perhaps even a legal question that's for a court to decide?I'm not sure how it should be worked out who has the right to use what. Could you elaborate or lead me to an article where that is explained in detail? TheOldGreyWhistle: Like I attempted to explain before, I think a value is something that guides your actions. Ideally, it should do so independently of the society you live in.I don't think the things you mentioned are values; they are concepts that follow from certain values. More precisely, they follow from the value of property rights.If you can claim to possess legitimate ownership over a means of production, then it logically follows that you can distribute and trade its products for whatever you personally think they're worth (it doesn't follow that it has to be money or that the deal has to be profitable).From a purely logical viewpoint, I don't see any flaws or problems in that value, but I would be happy to discuss it, too.
No, I think that's really great for a start, ALB :)Imho it's very important to be "philosophical" (in the sense of critically examining the basic underpinnings of a concept) when it comes to political ideologies. After all, there are millions of people who are seemingly convinced of precisely the opposite of what the particular group here puts forward.It won't get us anywhere to simply say "I'm right, you're wrong", like so many people do. By examining values rather than specific propositions it is much easier to understand and compare different ideologies. I don't believe that anyone has everything right, but many are on to something
That being said, I would really like to review the values of socialism as you summarized them. I hope that you can tell me afterwards if I got it right or what I got wrong.What makes things slightly more difficult of course is the fact that there are essentially two types of socialism; the theoretical ideal socialism and our actual current mixed system (I'm hesitant to call it capitalism, as there is no such thing as a "pure" system in practice).As you explained, it has different priorities in our current system than it would otherwise have.But I think it's only fair to look at it in its proper, ideal environment and reduce the "background noise" to a minimum, just like you would in any good science experiment. That's why I would like to ignore the first value you brought up (interests of the working class). So the value I'm interested in now is the equality of decision-making power.I take it literal in the sense that every person should have the power to make all the decisions in regard to their own life, as well as their society, as far as that is possible.I say that because it obviously is very difficult to make decisions that affect a whole group of people when each and every one has equal decision-making power. Because as soon as one person disagrees, it becomes impossible to turn that decision into reality without implicitly stating that the decision-making power of the minority is less valuable than that of everyone else, thus undermining the whole value system.Moreover, government becomes impossible in the face of true equality of decision-making power.After all, a government is based on the premise that a few especially qualified individuals have certain decision-making rights that the vast majority of other people don't have.So having a government would be akin to using windows when you claim to really, really value macintosh…For all intents and purposes, a truly consistent application of this value would be limited to individuals and the decisions they make for themself.This means that most laws would also not be sensible. For instance, it wouldn't be possible to make laws against drinking and driving, since nobody can claim that you don't have the power to decide to do so.However, some laws would be possible – for those actions that attempt to take away other peoples decision-making power.In essence, forcing others to do anything that they decide against would be immoral and/or criminal; things like assault, rape, fraud, murder, etc. The last value you stated can be described as a partial negation of the concept of property rights that we have at the moment – i.e. it's good not to own things (unless you really need them).The wonderful thing about this value is that it would make theft for the most part obsolete, as there's no point in stealing something when you can just take it if you need it.However, it is necessary to limit this value to only certain, "non-personal" items, since taking someone else's computer with their personal data or other personal belongings would still be theft (as it would interfere with their decision-making power).I think it's also clear that this isn't a value that can be supported by any kind of law. For example, if you need a house, you won't be able to just go to someone and demand the keys. You either have to hope that someone has built a house and is willing to give it to you or build your own. So that's the way I would understand the values you proposed. I'm very curious to find out where my deductions are off !TheOldGreyWhistle, thanks for the reply!Your observation is actually quite similar to mine, haha.I think it's very evident that the ethical views of people do constantly change with the times, but does that make them irrelevant?I don't think so – after all, any action a person or group takes has at some level to be a consequence of a (subjective) value or preference.For example, if I want to replace capitalism with socialism, it means that I value something about socialism (in other words I find it to be moral or worth doing), while I do not value capitalism (I find it immoral or not preferable).Values guide our actions.By knowing what – in this case – a socialist values, I can infer the stance they might hold in regard to a particular political or philosophical position, or what actions they may take if x or y happens.It works a lot like a scientific theory, in that it helps to understand and predict certain things. Now, that doesn't mean that the ethical model has to be "absolute" and unchangeable in order to be valid. We wouldn't ask that of a scientific theory, either. But let me get a little more concrete. A very simplistic ethical framework that I could devise for socialism (I don't necessarily believe that any socialist actually accepts it) would be something like this:- the greatest value is economical equality. Thus, any action that furthers this ideal is moral- the least valuable thing is economical inequality. Any action that leads to more inequality is immoral From this alone, it's possible to know how people who accept this model would act most of the time. I really think it's somewhat important. Or rather, not having an ethical framework for a political ideology to me is like having biology without the theory of evolution. There's nothing to connect all the fossils, dna findings or physical traits of different living organisms. No big picture, no real understanding. P.S.: The article you linked to very correctly observes that historically, morality has almost always been used for the interests of a particular group (or class). But like I previously explained, it doesn't follow that we therefore should strive towards a valueless society. Such a proposal would be rather hypocritical, given that socialists also have interests.
