h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Continuing from the "society business" thread...

I think that words like "socialist" and "liberal" have ceased to have any real meaning.

I've heard Americans describe the UK as "socialist", which it isn't on any definition in general use in Europe. Some in the UK call the Scandanavian social democracies socialist, but others would reject that definition, reserving "socialist" for those who are either anti-capitalist, or at the very least want to nationalise the "commanding heights" of the economy.

I'd like to be able to say that this is unimportant, but it isn't. The use, misuse, and confusion of those terms can prevent meaningful debate. Try talking to an disciple of Ann Rand ("objectivists") and this becomes very clear, as they divide the world and the world of ideas into a series of artificial binary oppositions.

But it happens elsewhere too. There's a tendancy among some non-academic libertarians to conflate central European-style capitalism with socialism, as if there is no difference either in guiding principles or actual practice. Such a world view leaves a stark choice between full-on libertarianism that leaves people to starve in the name of freedom on the one hand, and government control of everything on the other, and eliminates the many, many intermediate positions.

Conclusion? Labels are useful, but mean different things to different people, and terms must always be defined....

It's all relative. From the perspective of the staunchest libertarian, every social program and every regulation is socialist.

But since you brought it up... what is the difference between European central capitalism, free-market capitalism, and socialism?

I, personally, have heard "liberal", "socialist", "libertarian" and "conservative" all used incorrectly. Most of those words have no real meaning anymore.

In answer to Blatherskite, there is no difference between US and European capitalism. They function identically. The difference is in society. Europeans (including Britain) generally expect their government to provide them with a basic welfare state (health, education etc). Americans tend to be hostile to these things.

"Libertarianism" is an interesting one. In Europe, it has tended to mean a desire for personal freedom and "space" and a desire not to be cajoled or controlled by outside forces. In America, it appears to be a doctrine of no *governmental* interference in society or economics.

"Liberal" has no real meaning anymore. It tends to be used to label "left of centre" quasi-authoritarian social-engineering ideas.

"Socialist" is used as a term of abuse by rightwing Americans usually incorrectly. The only West European country, for example, that could genuinely be called "Socialist" with any real meaning would probably be Sweden. And even then they operate under a free-market economic system.

A welfare state is not a societal function, it is an economic one. You're taking collective funds to provide a uniform level of service to the society as a whole.

Paying for medical care is an economic function. Abortion rights would be a social function.

You can't deny that ideas such as universal health care, welfare, unemployment insurance, and labor unions all trace their origins to socialist thought. Labelling these things as socialist is correct and not necessarily propagandist. It's only when people assume an automatic negative connotation that applying a socialist label becomes so counterproductive.

As for the perception of US libertarianism, that probably has something to do with the influence of some wealthy businessmen who see it as their way to escape government regulation and grow their own power. I doubt that many ordinary citizens who ascribe to their basic tenets support the abolition of the minimum wage, for instance. And if they ever got elected, they'd never get that bill out of committee.

To me, libertarianism means protection from *all* powerful forces, and that includes big business. You can't have a healthy free market without regulating monopolies and corporate accountability.

I'd like to see corporate criminals serve jail time. Real jail time, in federal pound-me-in-the-ass prison. A thief is a thief, and the white-collar thief is far worse by degree... the common pickpocket only hurts a few people and steal a handful of money, whereas the Enron types hurt thousands and steal millions.

"There is only one freedom, to do as you want. And with it comes only one responsibility, to suffer the consequences."

Thanks for your response. A timely reminder that not all libertarians are pro-big business (a mistake I'm prone to making sometimes...)

>>>You can't deny that ideas such as universal health care, welfare, unemployment insurance, and labor unions all trace their origins to socialist thought. Labelling these things as socialist is correct and not necessarily propagandist. It's only when people assume an automatic negative connotation that applying a socialist label becomes so counterproductive.

I can deny this, and furthermore, I will! Some of these things go back to Roman times and even earlier. Most of these things pre-existed "socialism", though in different forms. Unions were preceded by guilds, and so on and so forth. Welfare goes back all the way through human history.

Historically (in the UK at least), the welfare state wasn't set up by the Labour party (influenced by socialist thought which famously owed "more to Methodism than Marxism") but by the Liberals. It was a response by capitalists to particular historical circumstances. It was, of course, strongly resisted by other capitalists! The origin of the UK's welfare state was at least partly when it was discovered during the Crimean War that the average Brit was too malnorished and ill to be a effective solider or (in time) an effective worker.

I've heard it argued that one of the mean reasons why Marx was wrong about predicting revolution is that he didn't foresee these kinds of reforms which alleviated the worst excesses of capitalism, spread the wealth around a bit, and made life a bit less awful for those at the bottom.

This is partly why I argue that a welfare state is in absolutely everyone's interests. Everyone needs a healthy and happy workforce. Less poverty equals less crime, less squalor and poverty means fewer diseases - including infectious ones that don't respect class or income.

I'll have a go at those definitions sometime soon...

<"There is only one freedom, to do as you want. And with it comes only one responsibility, to suffer the consequences.">

"Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law." Aleister Crowley.

These are selfish individualist creeds with which I disagree.

Pattern-chaser

"And ye harm none, do what ye will."

>"Historically (in the UK at least), the welfare state wasn't set up by the Labour party (influenced by socialist thought which famously owed "more to Methodism than Marxism") but by the Liberals. It was a response by capitalists to particular historical circumstances. It was, of course, strongly resisted by other capitalists!"


Yes, quite true. The welfare-capitalism of the second half of the 20th Century, had more to do with economic stability and state building than with socialist doctrine. It's worth adding that the welfare state was also fiercely resisted by many on the left, who regarded it as some kind of sellout to the establishment - a few nice goodies in exchange for continuing exploitation in the long term, was their view. I think it was Orwell (a self-described 'democratic socialist'), for example, who described it as a 'capitalist bribe'.

I've always had the feeling that the idea of the welfare state being 'socialist' is actually a bit of right-wing propaganda, designed to discredit it by association with (perceived) extremism. The fact that just about everyone these days (including most socialists, ironically) seems to believe the idea, sugests that, if there ever was such a plan, then it has worked.

"I think it was Orwell (a self-described 'democratic socialist'), for example, who described it as a 'capitalist bribe'."

Ironically, the welfare state brought about what Orwell felt should be the achievements of democratic socialism - ie a basic standard of living and respect for human "decency". He didn't seem that enamoured with the collectivised farming/everything of Marxist ideologues.

Otto: Comparing guilds to labor unions is like apples and orangutangs. I don't know of any of those things they may have had in Rome. But even if they did, it was the socialist movement that re-introduced them to Western political thought.

A healthy and happy workforce can provide for itself with the fruits of its labors. It does not need welfare.

P-c: You've missed the point about consequences. If you do harm, you suffer the consequences. That makes it much more like the Wicca tenet than the Satanist one.

Lear: Personally, I like to think that with the end of the Cold War, we can end the unnecessary McCarthy-esque connotations associated with the term socialism. In and of itself, socialism is neither good nor bad. It's just a different way of approaching a problem.

Oh.

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

"I've heard it argued that one of the mean reasons why Marx was wrong about predicting revolution is that he didn't foresee these kinds of reforms which alleviated the worst excesses of capitalism, spread the wealth around a bit, and made life a bit less awful for those at the bottom."

The other problem was that Marx was a product of a 19th-century European Imperialist society where the aristocracy and the capitalist class went hand in hand, where the state was only for protecting property and defending the privileged, where it was pretty much impossibly for someone of working-class origin to reach the higher echelons of government and where continuous state-expansion in the third-world was the order of the day, creating "coolie" labour and more "subjects".

Marx's revolutionary doctrines were a direct response to this: he did not foresee a welfare state or any such thing being borne out of this - it was "as is" or revolution to bring about a "worker's paradise". Of course, WWI, WWII, the fall of the aristocracy, the collapse of the European Empires and the "social market" rebuilding systems in post WWII Western Europe left his ideas floundering and the States based on Marxism fell behind and collapsed.

Interestingly, I'm sure I read somewhere that Marx regarded the USA as a place where there could not be a revolution since there was no real class system there. He basically seemed to write it out of his thinking.

P-C - I would've disagreed with you, but Blather did it for me. Besides, if thou wilt help other people, and there's nothing to get in thy way, then it's a better world than mine.

I would so like to come up with a decent scale for measurement of political systems. I suppose that a mixture of Blather's and mine - a three dimensional basis would be the best around right now. As other "comprehendable" dimensions come about, I'll try and add them in, too.
X= Economic.
Y= Social.
Z= Informational,
where Z is the freedom of information available to the standard citizen. Coordinates could be read off to give approximations of certain systems in relation to our own using discrete values of -,0, and +. Different branches of the same system could be conveyed more easily, thus anarcho-communism would be (+X,+Y,-Z), and anarcho-capitalism would be (0X,+Y,0Z).

Have you seen the website Political Compass? http://www.politicalcompass.org They have a model which is similar to the one you suggest - one axis ('x') for economics, one ('y') for social values - but without a third. The 'x' axis retains the old-fashioned left-right distinction, but confines it entirely to the realm of economics - extreme left being communism, extreme right being neo-liberalism. The 'y' axis ranges from extreme authoritarian at one end to extreme libertarian at the other.

Your idea sounds interesting, but to me it looks a little unnecessarily complicated. I'm not convinced that there is really a need for the third axis - informational - because I think that dimension could be contained well enough on a social values axis (ie, 'y'). An extreme authoritarian, naturally, would want to control information as tightly as possible; meanwhile, an extreme libertarian would obviously be keen to have the precise opposite, a free flow of information.


Interestingly, on the Political Compass model, the British National Party (which, for the benefit of non-UK readers, is a basically neo-fascist organisation) comes out as further to the left than New Labour, because the BNP modifies its highly authoritarian stance with a left-ish support for welfare, protection from globalisation, etc... while New Labour, as we know from bitter experience, does not. New Labour doesn't even fare much better than the BNP on the authoritarian - libertarian axis, for that matter, which once again is less surprising than I would really like it to be, speaking as an ex-Labour voter (click on the link on the menu bar entitled 'The Extreme Right' for more details).

That most certainly is not an endorsement of the BNP, by the way.


Lear

Yeah, that's it, the political compass. I couldn't remember where I'd stolen the idea from.

I agree on the information thing... it's just another issue on the overall social axis.

I took the test again and scored almost dead center economic, but solidly anarchic social. But then, their questions weren't always worded very well, so it's only so reliable.

I ended up very slightly to the left on economics, and about two thirds of the way along the road towards libertarianism (without actually getting there ).

Some of their questions are a bit vague. Another problem I noticed is that the absence of a 'Don't know' option meant I was sometimes being pushed into stating a stronger view on something than I really felt. But that's maybe not such a bad thing if they're only looking for general attitudes.

Warning Trivial Interuption

I followed the website path (sponsers)of Political Compass several months ago http://www.politicalcompass.org - to see who the dollar behind it was and who wanted to know such things and what it may be used for. i may be able to find the link.

It ended up being a large energy company based out of the state of Florida. Their purpose statement was about encouraging the widespread privatization of energy and water resources.

Hmmmm interesting IMO, what do you think about that?

When you cannot not say "I do not know". I do them twice from my most extremes of positions, then average it out.

I see they have come up with a lot of social anarcists.
*looking around to see about signing up*

Bleh. All these labels and leanings annoy me.

The only time they are useful is when they are set out clearly and accurately to define different political parties' stances. And this happens rarely.

The trouble is that it is always too tempting to try to shift the meaning of the labels that apply to your political opponents. This doesn't have to be conscious - we all have a negative impression of what our opponents stand for already.

Some people address this by insisting on original meanings of words, quaintly holding on to labels like liberal, marxist, anarchist, conservative. But this actually causes more confusion among listeners than enlightenment, unless they have already been indoctrinated into the "true" meanings.

For practical purposes we should not assume that listeners know the difference between socialist and communist, anarchist an anarcho-syndicalist, liberal and libertarian, conservative and conservationist - we should not place on our terms the burden of precision.

If I say "I support democracy" you are not much the wiser about what I stand for. The solution is not for us to find the original definition. The chances are that I'm not advocating Athenian democracy anyway. Rather, I should say what I'm talking about. "I think it should be possible to change the government without bloodshed." or "I think there should be proportional representation" or whatever it is. It might be obvious from the context, say if the executive was acting against the wishes of the legislature, or if we are talking about how members of the legislature should be chosen. Usually there is a sufficiently clear context for a term like "democracy" to be useful.

Three levels of freedom - personal, economic, and political - should do quite well for labelling any system to the satisfaction of the viewer.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/classic/F77636?thread=299215&latest=1 New policy Anouncement (complete with politics, labels,charts & colors) comments encouraged at Entry at A965252 Here is the most recent HOT article. Hootoo Home of Today A1119151 also related to the above indirectly.