The Value of Freedom

Then I will leave you two to your self indulgent agreement if no explanation is forth coming.

Explanation of what? Why I (we) think that socialism is incompatible with democracy? That is different. But there is nothing intrinsically irrational about saying that socialism is not compatible with democracy, is there?

If you think that , then in my opinion your not being rational. For me it is totally irrationally and inflaming. It requires explanation when you consider the term democratic socialism. You are deny a political opinion held by millions if not billions of people.

"Wholly"? That depends on a lot of things. But one thing is clear. Socialism is not compatible with democracy even partly.

Millions and billions of people probably thought that slavery was fine too.

I was mainly objecting to your point that socialism was by definition anti-humanist. If circumstances are such that the good of the collective and the good of the individual coincide, then socialism is a form of humanism. I can also imagine situations in which an individual might forgo their own self-interest in order to benefit their community in the name of human dignity. (Humanism is a broad term, but I am kind of making the assumption that in this context it refers to a concern for individual dignity and the respect of [basic] rights.) "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" is not an anti-humanist slogan.

I also would contest, while not questioning your own humanism, that individualism is necessarily a form of humanism. As I understand it, Individualism's primary dictum is that the individual is the sole unit of human value, and that the pursuit of individual self-interest is his right. But it seems to me, that as a political/moral philosophy individualism has no recourse except to resort to collective measures to resolve conflicts of interest if it is to respect and protect human rights. This may prove your point that all governments are to some degree socialist, although that is a pretty broad brush you are waving around, but it is not necessitated by an individualist perspective. Individualism could just as well advocate violence as the solution.

It isn't that individualism is not a form of humanism, but that both respect for the individual and a concern for the common good are both key points in humanist doctrine. To turn your metaphor around, I might ask, "Who has more faith, the monotheist or the polytheist?"

I think we should clarify what we mean by socialism. What I understand is supporting two broad goals: 1. That people can consume certain material goods regardless of their ability to acquire them in a free market (or other economic system), and 2. A general championship of "helping one another". In that sense, socialism is collectivist, because it favors collective action. But it is not concerned with "the greater good of society", it favors collective action for the good of the individual, in that sense it is not collectivist.
In the same way, individualism has goals of how it wants society to function. I would broadly identify them as 1. Wanting people to be able to consume the material goods they themselves acquired in a free market (or other economic system), and 2. A general championship of "being left be". It is less collectivist than socialism in the sense that it doesn't favor collective action. But as for being concerned with "the greater good of society", socialism and individualism are both not collectivist.
As I make clear, socialism uses collectivist force to achieve it's goals. But as you point out, individualism uses collectivist force to achieve it's goals as well. One is using collectivist force to make us work together, the other is using collectivist force to make us leave each others alone. It would be a value judgment which one does justify the use of collectivism. I grudgingly have to agree that individualism is not necessarily a form of humanism. Nor is socialism a form of anti-humanism. You are right, "Who is more of a theist, the monotheist or the polytheist?". Answer: Both are equally theistic, but the way we use our language might make us conclude that the polytheist is more theistic.

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" is not an anti-humanist slogan, but it's not a collectivist slogan. You notice it mentions the individual twice, but not other people or the collective. Marxism postulates a post scarcity scenario; i.e. all goods and services that everybody wants being produced with only the labor that individuals wish to perform without material reward. This means Marxism - as a theory - solves the theoretical contradiction between socialism and individualism. In a post-scarcity world everybody can have all the material goods they want without the need for expropriation, nor forcing individualist behavior. Thus Marxism is not collectivist, it gets rid of the need for collectivist force.
Collectivism as such doesn't exist. There can be no "greater good of society" which goes contrary to the dignity of the individual, because society is made up of individuals. All ideologies that claim this are based on faulty arguments, and merely use the "greater good of society" as an excuse to benefit some narrow interest.

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" is not an anti-humanist slogan, but it's not a collectivist slogan. You notice it mentions the individual twice, but not other people or the collective. Marxism postulates a post scarcity scenario; i.e. all goods and services that everybody wants being produced with only the labor that individuals wish to perform without material reward. This means Marxism - as a theory - solves the theoretical contradiction between socialism and individualism. In a post-scarcity world everybody can have all the material goods they want without the need for expropriation, nor forcing individualist behavior. Thus Marxism is not collectivist, it gets rid of the need for collectivist force.

[T]he democratic views of many modern socialist...the acceptance that moral behaviour is not part of the ideology of uncontrolled capitalism.

I will, however, continue to disagree that Marx's famous phrase is not a call to collectivism. This point is, in fact, beside the point, but I'm a pedantic quibbler, so I can't resist bringing it up.

Marx was a Hegelian, but I do not know if he was quite the utopian you portray here. I think that he saw the fulfillment of this phrase in immediate action, not in a post-scarcity world. I believe that the "each" here implies an "every", a reference to a collective (but one that acknowledges the importance of the individual) is implicit. I think that the fact that some will have greater abilities, some greater needs, and that this disparity will result in those of greater ability providing for those with greater needs, even in the face of scarcity, is taken into account in the Marxist program.

Socialism obviously hasn't always, if ever, worked out that way in practice, and a failure to admit to the existence of governmental coercion to enforce economic policies would be either naive or obscurantist.

I personally do not think that democracy and socialism are incompatible, although perhaps it would serve us well to remember that most of the countries we refer to as democracies are in fact republics.

nota bene: I am not an economist. If anyone with a background in economics wants to correct my inevitably erroneous critique, I welcome their contributions. I'm here to learn.

Yes, Marx saw the fulfillment of this phrase in immediate action. But Marxist economics postulated that this immediate action could create the utopian world which would make "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" work..."From each according to his ability" is simply not enough to produce "to each according to his need".

For example China is an often-cited instance of relatively great economic individualism with relatively restricted political individualism, and the intention of European-style democratic socialism is that you can have economic authoritarianism without political authoritarianism. So I think democracy and socialism are not necessarily incompatible, but the economic organization will always drag the political organization in it's direction; e.g. China is moving towards political freedom, and Europe is about to hand it's decision making over to unelected commissars that can overrule the democratic process at will.

1. In a free market there is no 'exploitation'.
Marxist exploitation theory states that value is created by labor, therefore labor is exploited by capital if it is paid less than the value it creates. In a free market, this is simply false. Value is not created by labor, value is created by supply an demand...A worker is not paid a share of a companies profits, a worker is paid according to supply and demand, completely regardless of what the company produces or what it's profits are. (For example, he is also paid if the company makes a loss.) And the capitalist is paid according to supply and demand of the sale of his product, regardless of how much labor went into that product. Therefore someone who works voluntarily in a free market is never exploited.

2. Free market capitalism (as a theory) has no moral shortcomings.
Yes, certain types of economic inequality are intrinsic to the individualist economic model... Income in a free market is not distributed, it is earned...But in a free market, the economy is not a zero-sum game, therefore the income of one person is not to the detriment of any other person. The existence of rich people do not make the poor poorer. Actually it only enhances their opportunity, for example to get a job or buy cheaper products.

3. The "success rate" of laissez-faire capitalism (as a theory) and socialism are not in any way similar.
Wherever economic individualism has been practiced, it caused prosperity. And wherever there was or is prosperity it is because of economic individualism. The theory of economic individualism has a 100% track record of success. The theory of economic authoritarianism has a 100% track record of failure.

4. The current economic crisis was not in part a failure of capitalism.
The current economic crisis was entirely created by foolish (and evil) government intervention and the abandonment of free market principles. The banks has their buddies in the government to make sure they get bailed out. Once they knew they were "too big to fail" they made loans to everybody who couldn't possibly pay them back. In a free market a company wouldn't make such stupid decisions, because it would doom the company to financial ruin, but because the risk was socialized, they had nothing to lose. This wasn't a failure of capitalism, but one of government intervention.

Sorry for replying so late; I imagine interest in this debate is on the wane. Nonetheless, quibbler that I am, I wanted to post a reply regarding a couple of your points. I'll do my best to remain brief. And please let me assure you, that I understand how futile it is to argue about the finer points of Marx's doctrine. Marx is kind of like the Bible, you can find a justification for just about anything there. Also, I understand that there is a very big difference between socialism and Marxism. As far as I know, there isn't a single unifying theory of socialism. It represents a movement with a variety of different justifications, but pursued by similar means. That being said...(And look! The promise of brevity is already broken.)

I believe that Marx thought that the means for providing for each according to his needs was possible within the given means of production. What immediate action, or as we might more clearly state it -- revolution, would produce was the dissolution of those social constraints that prevent us from constructing a system of just distribution.

Your point about the economic realities determining the historical trajectory of the superstructure is surprisingly Marxist.

However, saying that China is a good example of a country "moving towards freedom" is a dangerous prediction to say the least. Unlike Marx, I am not at all satisfied that the theory of history's dialectal progression is justified.

I'm not certain whether you are accurately describing the theory of the labor value of commodities. However, even if you want to dispel it with the theory of supply and demand there might be some things worth pointing out. Labor is one of the key elements of supply, and the only circumstance in which it is bought is slavery. Otherwise, it is simply rented. In a state of nature scenario like Rousseau's, labor regulates supply, and in conjunction with demand, creates market value. In an industrial capitalist framework, a worker owns his labor but not the means of production (which is what capital actually represents.) Caught up in such a framework (Which may or may not be voluntary. Let's face it, most of us are born into the economic system that we live in. I bold-faced the word "voluntary" in your statement.) the worker is required to work in the best interest of the possessor of these means of production. While the worker may be allowed to survive, I think it would be difficult to say that they are working in their own best interest. They may manage to profit from their labor, but only in so far as they manage to limit the cost of living. For the successful capitalist (that is, the one who owns the means of production) the money earned that is directed towards the cost of survival is negligible when compared with those sewn up in business interests. Using social institutions to convince someone to work against their own interest is what I was referring to as exploitation.

I, personally, didn't ascribe anything moral to the system or the theory of capitalism. I try to avoid applying what I see as the theological concepts of good and evil to social constructs like economic systems. It's unproductive.

But I would contest that "in a free market income equality is about as useful as everybody in a room having the same birthday." I think that depends on whether someone is throwing you a party or not. It might not be useful to the system, but it makes a large difference to the individual, the value of which you rightfully champion.

I also question where you would suppose the endless supply of money and goods to come from in a free market. Money does not simply represent what you can purchase with it. All of those little pieces of paper, or 1s and 0s I suppose, also represent a system of checks and balances, profits and debts. The value of money is not in infinite supply regardless of how much the symbolic units proliferate. If someone has a lot of it, it does mean that someone else doesn't have it.

Of course, you are right that money is not distributed in a capitalist system. The generic term I should have used when comparing socialism and capitalism was "disseminate".

I am wondering what historical yardstick you are using to measure success? If it is merely longevity, then I can't really recall a country of either economic type whose borders have remained stable enough for long enough to rate. One is tempted to theorize that both systems are prone to war-mongering. And I have to admit I am being a little sarcastic when I ask, do you consider the Roman Empire a prime example of laissez-faire capitalism? It was both fabulously wealthy and long lasting on a scale not seen since.

The current economic crisis was entirely created by foolish (and evil) government intervention and the abandonment of free market principles. The banks has their buddies in the government to make sure they get bailed out. Once they knew they were "too big to fail" they made loans to everybody who couldn't possibly pay them back. In a free market a company wouldn't make such stupid decisions, because it would doom the company to financial ruin, but because the risk was socialized, they had nothing to lose. This wasn't a failure of capitalism, but one of government intervention.

That isn't the narrative I've heard given by most economists, but I am guilty of listening to a bunch of lefties anyway, so I'm not free from prejudice. The way I have heard it described is this: The profit motive was too large not to risk the negative consequences, and a lack of regulation, either internal or governmental, allowed for the risks to outweigh the benefit. The biggest profiteers from the real estate collapse didn't take advantage of the US bailout, they had already retired with their profits before the bubble burst. Saying that the collapse happened because of the bailout seems a little like putting the cart before the horse.

Sorry if some of these replies seem snarky...I've been dealing with the holidays, as well as other stressful things outside the realm of the interwebz. This contributed to the tone, but none of it is directed towards anyone on this site.

I think power is what is important. 'Freedom' is only a scheme for making kind of p:bigsmile:

I do not understand your second sentence. Can you explain more clearly what you mean. Can Power be substituted by Authority in your argument ?

Pepijn OX

I do not understand your second sentence. Can you explain more clearly what you mean.

Can Power be substituted by Authority in your argument ?

Before I address the majority of your comments, I would like to admit that you were right to call out my misuse of the term "theological." I often indulge myself by using that term so broadly that it hardly has any meaning at all. My point, though, was that the terms good, and especially, evil are moral terms, even when we use them in a secular context, inherited from religious rhetoric. Sometimes, I find them inappropriate for reasons I will explain more below.

Throughout your post you refer to a "pure free market". I'm not entirely sure what sort of animal that would be, so I don't feel comfortable speculating as to the consequences of its possible existence. Unless you can cite an historical example of it, my comments will be directed towards existing capitalism as I know it. Given all that you've described it as, though, it honestly sounds as utopian as any state that Marx dreamed of and not dissimilar to it.

From my humanist perspective, no economic system can be identified as entirely humanist for the same reason that the terms good and evil do not apply.

Rather, I am saying that, given the proper arrangement of historical particulars, the same economic system can function according to humanist beliefs as easily at it can be abused by someone with less than humanistic intent.

I also think that a person can be voluntarily exploited. A person can sacrifice the pursuit of their own best interest for the benefit of another. When this is done without restraint it is called altruism.

But when a person benefits to the disadvantage of another by enforcing societal norms, it is a form of exploitation. Whether the exploited person also believes in the social construct seems beside the point. The concept of ownership is just such a social construct. To argue that ownership is a natural or innate quality of objects is not tenable. There are certainly circumstances wherein the employer/employee relationship is mutually beneficial, but there is nothing in capitalism that makes it necessarily so.

And the distinguishing feature between the employer and the employee, which is the ownership of the means of production, dictates a power-relationship between the two which leaves the employer with the upper hand. I feel like I have to look back to a broader view of economics to make my points clear.

I'm not sure how to take your contention that everyone owns some part of the means of production, it just does not ring true to me. How does an employee who owns nothing but his labor exercise the rights and privileges of company ownership?

If the employee/laborer maintains greater intimacy with the resources employed in production, the employer/capitalist enjoys closer contact with the consumer. It is upon this relationship that his claims to ownership rest. All transactions occur via the ownership of the means of production, or in a more sophisticated economic model, with the means of distribution. ... The employer/capitalist, assuming that the portion reflecting production costs will be re-invested in further production, still has discretion as to how the surplus will be used. Some will, of course and understandably, be pocketed to satisfy his or her own needs. The rest may be either re-invested in the company they own thus enhancing its value, or it may be invested in other diverse privately (or corporately or publicly, etc.) -owned operations to reinforce the system as a whole.

To return to supply and demand-- Just as supply is restricted by limited resources, and the competition for such determines the availability of goods, so too are there limits on demand. ...
I'm not sure how this competition for limited resources jibes with your conception of a pure capitalist system in which we all pursue the same goals in complete equality. How do you reconcile complete cooperation, exclusive ownership, and limited resources? I imagine that it is possible that we could all have the same goals, but given the practical limits, we couldn't all hope to achieve them. And since we don't all start at the same economic level, and the differences are intrinsic to capitalism, I don't know how it could be considered egalitarian.

When socialists discuss the redistribution of wealth, this does not mean simply taking money from the rich to make their income equal to those of the poor. The redistribution is theoretically meant to raise the standard of living for the poor, without putting the former rich at an economic disadvantage. The economic equality thus achieved is not meant to hamper the freedom of the rich, they would (again theoretically) still have the opportunity to satisfy their reasonable desires.

I do not intend to confuse wealth and freedom in my analysis, but there is a correlation between being able to satisfy one's needs (as distinct from wants) and being able to freely act. There is a connection between negotiable income and leisure and freedom.

I also think we will continue to disagree about the events that led up to the international financial collapse. I'll restrict my comments to matters in the US, since that is what I am most familiar with. I'll ask you to remember that the financial crisis actually occurred when a conservative congress and executive administration in favor of laissez-faire policies were in power,

What you mean is that morality as a concept is closely tied to organized movements of faith, such as theology. But that's not the case...Morality represents how we would like the world to work; without applying good and bad to situations there can be no political opinion. Morality is not avoidable.

The question was whether capitalism has moral shortcomings. The attack that Marxism mounts is that capitalism allows for 'exploitation'. You both seem to agree that such a thing exists and that is is 'bad'.

People seem to think that because there is no historical example of true capitalism it is utopian like communism. But the two are different, communism was attempted numerous times and failed because it assumes effects that simply don't happen. Capitalism on the other side works as a theory, we just never did it 100%. The more we do it, the better it works.

An economic system is a course of action, such as administrating the means of production collectively, that will have certain consequences, such as more or less poverty. We can argue about what these consequences are, and one opinion will be the most correct one. In other words, one ideology is the most accurate one, and others are wrong. Intent is irrelevant, a course of action either has consequences that advance the dignity of the individual or limit it. You can only misunderstand the effects of an economic system, or the meaning of humanism, you can not abuse a system with the wrong intent.

Altruism as such does not exist. All actions are for our own good, even those that give up material advantage. They merely give up material advantage in exchange for psychological advantage; e.g. to give money to the poor to feel noble.

Your argument is 'property is theft'? That's pretty Marxist, I think. It's not merely like you are pushed in the position of playing the devils advocate, you actually advocate the Marxist position.

[Private ownership is] simply a way of giving an individual or corporation control over the utility it creates, and thereby creating a reason to create it in the first place, to the benefit of society as a whole.

I think what lefties forget is that capitalism doesn't mean that there's like an enduring owner-class...Actually holding on to ownership is incredibly difficult because people constantly compete for your wealth...Only an unfree market benefits the rich. What we currently have is a situation where property rights are used to secure the estates of the elites, but sporadic government intervention shields them from competition, which means that property rights don't apply to everybody else.
This is not something that you can explain to people, and especially not in such short a format. People either get it or not. So I will leave it at that.

This distinguishing feature does not exist. The means of production are not just machines and factories...the means of production are just that: the means we use to produce stuff. Capital and labor are both the means of production.

The power relationship you speak of goes both ways, the owner of the small machine forces the owner of the large machine to pay him a leasing price; the laborer forces the employer to pay him a wage large enough for the laborer to voluntarily show up every day.

If the worker owns no part in the means of production, what exactly is he paid for?

You are making it more complicated than necessary. All you need to know is that the relationship between employee and employer is the same as that between employer (producer) and his customer.

I am somewhat befuddled by your contention. I think you are making it unnecessarily complicated. By 'equal' I do not mean that we all have the same, but that we all are the same. I.e. there are not two different animals - the capitalist and the worker - that benefit from different things and therefore have to fight each others in a class struggle. Like one animal surviving in oxygen and the other in nitrogen, so only one can have the atmosphere it needs. But we are the same animal, and therefore need the same thing. We are equal in that sense. That we all have the same goals does not imply that we can all achieve them at the same time.

That would require that some commissar declares what people he does not know need, and then by force take away the money that they do not "need". It's clear that we are entering totalitarianism here. How could you ever build a free system on such a oppressive notion.

The Bush administration did record-setting spending and adding of regulation. It was not only not laissez-faire, it was less laissez-faire than any administration before it. Believing that Republicans per definition are conservative and laissez-faire is just doctrine, I don't even know whether it is even possible to rationally argue with such views.