The argument about just what exactly constitutes "socialism" is one I find intriguing and worthwhile.
It is common to see the claim that since the state has not socialized the means of production, or created a vanguard for proletarian redistributionism, that to worry about creeping socialism is to be delusional.
The implication is that since policy has and is aimed at the redistribution of wealth to the elite few, rather than helping the working class, that something else entirely must be afoot and the word socialism has no place to describe it.
Well, that is true in one sense.
But it is false in another.
And to see the paradox is to distinguish between socialism per se, as found in our dictionary definitions, and what I would call "meta socialism," or socialism prime.
So we can distinguish between socialism proper, which is where the means of production are brought together in a singular central plan, as opposed to meta socialism, which is central planning in ways not as overt or obvious.
But a covert plan formed centrally and imposed with legal violence is a central plan none the less.
An example of meta socialism would be found in a nominally market based order, where property is owned privately, de jure, but de facto its use is circumscribed and controlled by the state, as in the case of patents and IP laws, which are simply grants of monopoly privilege or various other restrictions too numerous to list.
Or we see it in the central planning of money and credit, through a private banking cartel.
What distinguishes socialism from all other forms of social organization is the existence of violence and force.
Under socialism, in either variety, the choice set of actors are circumscribed not only by their resource endowments, their budget, and the natural laws, but also by the arbitrary dictates of some authority.
For example, an entrepreneur might very well have a brilliant idea for replicating and improving on some competitors product or process, and he may have the means of competing, but owing to some monopoly privilege, such as a patent, he is preventing from using his own property in the most value enhancing way.
An arbitrary force imposes its will on the peaceful entrepreneur.
Now all is well if you are the competition and this act protects your profit margins.
But in the meantime there is an opportunity cost in terms of jobs that are not created, the goods that go un-produced and the new inventions/ innovations and ideas that may have come out of this process, that we cannot begin to predict or account for.
What is lost cannot be known for we cannot know what someone might have created given the freedom to do so. Nor can we know how these creations could lead to subsequent innovations on the part of others, or what the pattern of production/consumption that would have occurred might look like.
Beyond that it is immoral to control other people in way that violates their self ownership.
So make no mistake, this is a form of central planning. It is not aimed at "seizing the means" or overturning the "bourgeois."
But it is centralized planning even if it occurs against the backdrop of private property in the means of production, or what we call "private property."
As has been argued, this really amounts to de facto central planning, for if one cannot do what they wish with their own property (and body) then they do not really own it.
Essentially, socialism per se is a story about the means of production and who owns/ controls them.
But that is incomplete. For the means of production are only half the story, and not even the most important part.
More important than private property in things, such as capital goods, is the private boundary separating people.
Where the individual does not enjoy self ownership, she is subject to the arbitrary will of another and her boundaries are not respected. In such a situation, even the self is public property, to some extent, and that renders private ownership of anything impossible, in the strict sense of the word.
So we can have a de facto socialism even in a de jure private property order, where the rule of men replaces the rule of law, and where ownership is private in name, but controlled centrally de facto, along with the people themselves.
To conclude, there are numerous ways in which political force is used to shape the pattern of production, investment, and income, in what is supposed to be a market based society.
Every example in this vein involves some imposition on the will of others, using force and violence, concerning how various properties will be used.
And these dictates come from sources other than the rightful property owner.
To the extent these dictates are enforceable, they constitute a centralized plan, even if the means of production are said to be privately owned. The key is that the owner is not free to use them how she wishes, with respect for the rights of others being the key consideration.
The dictate is imposed, above and beyond considerations of justice or the rule of law. And in the process, the rule of law is lost, and is replaced with the rule of men.
And this constitutes a start toward a meta theory of socialism.
Quick question: is any state where regulations are enforced by the threat of violence socialist?
AS perfect example would be the "Farm Bill" complete control over production via coercion and bribe.
First, typical long winded, left wing gibberish. And in a service economy - as our is - controlling the means of production, no longer means running the factories. It could also mean controlling much of the service sector via government regulation.
Quote from: mdgiles on February 14, 2014, 06:06:27 AM
First, typical long winded, left wing gibberish. And in a service economy - as our is - controlling the means of production, no longer means running the factories. It could also mean controlling much of the service sector via government regulation.
I think his point was a delineation of socialism, as in what we have today and where we're headed.
All comes down to the differences in Fabian socialism, and Marxism, yet still, both have the same end goal/result, complete state control.
Quote from: Bismarck Revivalist on February 14, 2014, 03:23:06 AM
Quick question: is any state where regulations are enforced by the threat of violence socialist?
Yes, in the sense of meta socialism..
Quote from: mdgiles on February 14, 2014, 06:06:27 AM
First, typical long winded, left wing gibberish. And in a service economy - as our is - controlling the means of production, no longer means running the factories. It could also mean controlling much of the service sector via government regulation.
You have to be kidding...
Left wing?!
I challenge you to find a single left wing statement!
And your 2nd and 3rd statements are simply restating the argument of OP.
Quote from: Solar on February 14, 2014, 06:22:56 AM
I think his point was a delineation of socialism, as in what we have today and where we're headed.
All comes down to the differences in Fabian socialism, and Marxism, yet still, both have the same end goal/result, complete state control.
Yes, exactly.
The point is to show what all the different forms have in common and why socialism is any form of centralized planning.
Quote from: TowardLiberty on February 14, 2014, 06:26:24 AM
You have to be kidding...
Left wing?!
I challenge you to find a single left wing statement!
And your 2nd and 3rd statements are simply restating the argument of OP.
Okay, forced myself to reread your post, and it seems we agree. I apologize. Because it isn't the classical socialism as outlined in the 19th century, doesn't mean it isn't socialism in the 21st.
Quote from: TowardLiberty on February 14, 2014, 06:25:21 AM
Yes, in the sense of meta socialism..
Watch his definition of "regulation" change to any and all laws.
Quote from: mdgiles on February 14, 2014, 06:34:00 AM
Okay, forced myself to reread your post, and it seems we agree. I apologize. Because it isn't the classical socialism as outlined in the 19th century, doesn't mean it isn't socialism in the 21st.
Yeah, that's really all I am saying.
Quote from: Solar on February 14, 2014, 06:37:33 AM
Watch his definition of "regulation" change to any and all laws.
I have already seen an equivocation between rights and welfare, ie a guaranteed income/ job..
Quote from: TowardLiberty on February 14, 2014, 06:51:20 AM
I have already seen an equivocation between rights and welfare, ie a guaranteed income/ job..
Yeah, saw that too, where he is rewriting the definition of a right.
Quote from: TowardLiberty on February 14, 2014, 06:51:20 AM
I have already seen an equivocation between rights and welfare, ie a guaranteed income/ job..
Or a "right" to health care.
So the word "right" is redefined thereby giving socialism the appearance of naturally occurring.
Quote from: Bismarck Revivalist on February 14, 2014, 03:23:06 AM
Quick question: is any state where regulations are enforced by the threat of violence socialist?
Read Locke Second treatise of government to understand what you are failing to comprehend.
Not sure I agree with OP on patents, though I'm wholly opposed to licenses or other artificial restrictions on supply. Pantents safeguarded innovations throughout the British Empire and gave the British incentive to invent because they would profit from it. I.e the Wright brothers were adamant on getting patents on their invention, would they have lived in poverty knowing that if they actually succeeded they would still be living in poverty if there were no patent laws?
Licences on the other hand are used by unions and government to restrict supply in order to drive up cost to the consumer, this is wholly socialist.
As for the application of capital, if it is determined and regulated by the government then it is socialism even if it is privately owned. Take China "market economy" the ownership is privately owned by inner communist party members and the application is centrally controlled, I would call it socialism as opposed to a free market where individuals determine the best use of their capital based on whatever goals they want to achieve.
QuoteWhat is lost cannot be known for we cannot know what someone might have created given the freedom to do so. Nor can we know how these creations could lead to subsequent innovations on the part of others, or what the pattern of production/consumption that would have occurred might look like.
That is a very good point, and Milton Friedman pointed it out with the FDA bureaucracy. Bureaucrats are individuals, and as individuals they make decision based on personal risk, a bureaucrat that never approves any new drugs runs a lower risk of having blowback than a bureaucrat that approves said drug, so the incentives of a bureaucracy is antithetitical to innovation and improvement. Only expanding budgets, maximizing employees and clients while at the same time making the system hard for clients to finish applications/producedures and cutting spending by cutting services instead of reducing number of workers. I.e look at Disney when it was run as a visionary company under Walt Disney and how it is run now under a corporate bureaucracy.
The thing about patents is they have gotten unbelievably out of hand. Patent trolls are running wild and it's killing innovation. They are suing for the most ridiculous things and contribute nothing.
Quote from: taxed on February 16, 2014, 07:55:56 PM
The thing about patents is they have gotten unbelievably out of hand. Patent trolls are running wild and it's killing innovation. They are suing for the most ridiculous things and contribute nothing.
I patented that post! Ima gonna sue you...
Quote from: The Boo Man... on February 16, 2014, 07:58:22 PM
I patented that post! Ima gonna sue you...
Let's just settle. $250mm OK?
Quote from: The Boo Man... on February 16, 2014, 08:00:56 PM
In nickles...
Wait... I patented nickles... I also patented money requests in nickles!
Quote from: taxed on February 16, 2014, 08:12:42 PM
Wait... I patented nickles... I also patented money requests in nickles!
Damn! Slim Jims. I want payment is Slim Jims..
Quote from: The Boo Man... on February 16, 2014, 08:14:44 PM
Damn! Slim Jims. I want payment is Slim Jims..
Trademark infringement!!! I'm suing!
Quote from: Solar on February 16, 2014, 08:19:00 PM
Trademark infringement!!! I'm suing!
You can't. I patented the word "suing"
Quote from: The Boo Man... on February 16, 2014, 08:27:11 PM
You can't. I patented the word "suing"
OK, but I own litigious, and I'm litigating you ass for one meeelion dollers....
Quote from: walkstall on February 16, 2014, 08:37:17 PM
Make that Indian head nickel with no date.
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
SHABOOM
The problem with patents, from a private property- rule of law perspective, is that they are limits on what other people can do with their OWN property.
I don't care how inventive you are, you have no right to tell me what I can and can't do with my own property, providing I am peaceful, without infringing on my natural liberty in an aggressive and violent fashion.
Quote from: TowardLiberty on February 17, 2014, 07:10:51 AM
The problem with patents, from a private property- rule of law perspective, is that they are limits on what other people can do with their OWN property.
I don't care how inventive you are, you have no right to tell me what I can and can't do with my own property, providing I am peaceful, without infringing on my natural liberty in an aggressive and violent fashion.
Yes government's regulations on patents is killing innovation in our country. We found out through our own personal experience. My husband had built and designed a new machine for planting and harvesting of grape vines. It worked remarkably better than anything his company was using. So this multi-million $ company backed up his invention, hired lawyers and paid all expenses. So many years later, they were still fighting beueracracy and massive regulations. The company could see this would never get patented and so informed my husband. Some grape farmers saw his new invention and he went ahead and made more. This was about 10 years ago and I am sure with Obozo, it is probably impossible now to ever get anything through.
Your Government at work for you.
Mountain Shield makes some good points with respect to wealth and its regulation.
Adam Smith makes regular references to Royal Commissions and what amounts to
the set of rules regulating of commerce (the name of that category of regulations
escapes me at the moment.) In his inimitable way, Smith caresses the issues in such a
way as to provide us a perspective that both allows for the existence of regulation while
at the same time keeps us in control of it, as opposed to the reverse.
Monopoly laws, anti-trust, and so forth. Some in the Tea Party go off the deep end and
want to do away with all regulation. This makes us look a little uninformed.
But it is the issue of Chinese ownership Mountain Shield touches on that I think deserves
a look. How many of us see Asian trade as funneling the proceeds of our entire economy
into the accounts of a handful of communist leaders? We hear things like, "The Chinese
are buying our debt," without really thinking about what we are hearing.
Quote from: red_dirt on February 17, 2014, 11:35:47 AM
Mountain Shield makes some good points with respect to wealth and its regulation.
Adam Smith makes regular references to Royal Commissions and what amounts to
the set of rules regulating of commerce (the name of that category of regulations
escapes me at the moment.) In his inimitable way, Smith caresses the issues in such a
way as to provide us a perspective that both allows for the existence of regulation while
at the same time keeps us in control of it, as opposed to the reverse.
Monopoly laws, anti-trust, and so forth. Some in the Tea Party go off the deep end and
want to do away with all regulation. This makes us look a little uninformed.
But it is the issue of Chinese ownership Mountain Shield touches on that I think deserves
a look. How many of us see Asian trade as funneling the proceeds of our entire economy
into the accounts of a handful of communist leaders? We hear things like, "The Chinese
are buying our debt," without really thinking about what we are hearing.
Uhh, No we do not!
I don't know where you're hearing that nonsense, but that is not anywhere in the TEA platform, nor being echoed by it's members.
That's LIBertarian BS, and I emphasize LIB, because the left is watering down the Libertarian movement over being lied to by the Dim party, they needed somewhere else to go, and hating anything to do with Republican, they chose the Libertarian party.
So please, don't confuse the TEA with LIBertarians lite.
Quote from: red_dirt on February 17, 2014, 11:35:47 AM
Mountain Shield makes some good points with respect to wealth and its regulation.
Adam Smith makes regular references to Royal Commissions and what amounts to
the set of rules regulating of commerce (the name of that category of regulations
escapes me at the moment.) In his inimitable way, Smith caresses the issues in such a
way as to provide us a perspective that both allows for the existence of regulation while
at the same time keeps us in control of it, as opposed to the reverse.
Monopoly laws, anti-trust, and so forth. Some in the Tea Party go off the deep end and
want to do away with all regulation. This makes us look a little uninformed.
But it is the issue of Chinese ownership Mountain Shield touches on that I think deserves
a look. How many of us see Asian trade as funneling the proceeds of our entire economy
into the accounts of a handful of communist leaders? We hear things like, "The Chinese
are buying our debt," without really thinking about what we are hearing.
But the history of anti-trust is not one of some efficient and rational regulation, whereby monopolistic behavior is identified and corrected. Rather it was a political tool for inferior competitors to use the court system to win market share denied to them by the consumers.
If we do not understand that we risk being uninformed about the reality of the situation- which is often the reverse of what we are led to believe.
Same goes for monopolies and cartels, which are creatures of the state, not the market.
For on the market, where no legal protection forestalls competition, any above average profit will induce competition and replication. Greed is the great destroyer of the monopoly, therefore the power of the state is necessary to protect it.
Quote from: Solar on February 17, 2014, 11:45:46 AM
Uhh, No we do not!
I don't know where you're hearing that nonsense, but that is not anywhere in the TEA platform, nor being echoed by it's members.
That's LIBertarian BS, and I emphasize LIB, because the left is watering down the Libertarian movement over being lied to by the Dim party, they needed somewhere else to go, and hating anything to do with Republican, they chose the Libertarian party.
So please, don't confuse the TEA with LIBertarians lite.
I take issue with that.
If regulations are instances of welfare, and protectionism, then the TEA party better get on board with the libertarian message of free markets and private property, or it is letting the left water down the movement.
Quote from: TowardLiberty on February 17, 2014, 12:21:09 PM
I take issue with that.
If regulations are instances of welfare, and protectionism, then the TEA party better get on board with the libertarian message of free markets and private property, or it is letting the left water down the movement.
Read it again, and this time take context of my response into consideration.
Note: I differentiate between LIBertarian, and Libertarian, they are not the same, the current crop backing the party, haven't a clue what Libertarianism means, all they know is free drug use etc.
They are the influx of libs as I mentioned.
Quote from: Solar on February 17, 2014, 12:46:05 PM
Read it again, and this time take context of my response into consideration.
Note: I differentiate between LIBertarian, and Libertarian, they are not the same, the current crop backing the party, haven't a clue what Libertarianism means, all they know is free drug use etc.
They are the influx of libs as I mentioned.
Oh ok.
Well I don't follow the Libertarian party. I don't even consider them libertarians, in the full sense of the word, for they seek political power.
Quote from: TowardLiberty on February 17, 2014, 01:14:46 PM
Oh ok.
Well I don't follow the Libertarian party. I don't even consider them libertarians, in the full sense of the word, for they seek political power.
You can't change the system if you aren't willing to participate in it.
It's like war, if someone attacks you, you have two options, surrender, or fight back.
We're fighting back!
Quote from: Solar on February 17, 2014, 01:18:06 PM
You can't change the system if you aren't willing to participate in it.
It's like war, if someone attacks you, you have two options, surrender, or fight back.
We're fighting back!
Ah but that is where we share different goals. I do not wish to change the system. For then MY system would be imposed on others and that would not be just.
I want to destroy the system.
There is no good or rational form of political power, in my view.
Quote from: TowardLiberty on February 17, 2014, 01:20:00 PM
Ah but that is where we share different goals. I do not wish to change the system. For then MY system would be imposed on others and that would not be just.
I want to destroy the system.
There is no good or rational form of political power, in my view.
I do!
I understand your view, so you're saying the Founders were wrong?
Thanks for picking up on that statement about "zero regulation." Now that I think about
it, those statements were made in another forum by a known and suspected RINO troll whose
aim seems to be to infiltrate the forum and cause us to look like nuts.
Always good caution and good to have critical eyes on the ball.
The Libertarians are, in spite of a few good ideas, a screwy lot. I see them as the creative
fringe, occasionally contributing.
Quote from: red_dirt on February 17, 2014, 01:45:53 PM
Thanks for picking up on that statement about "zero regulation." Now that I think about
it, those statements were made in another forum by a known and suspected RINO troll whose
aim seems to be to infiltrate the forum and cause us to look like nuts.
Always good caution and good to have critical eyes on the ball.
The Libertarians are, in spite of a few good ideas, a screwy lot. I see them as the creative
fringe, occasionally contributing.
No prob.
When it comes to facts, I never let innocuous assertions about the goal of TEA go unanswered, we have too many that read this forum for the truth, and little untruths spread quickly, like the Dims claim we're racist, which is totally laughable.
Oh, and can you do me a favor and use the quote function?
Quote from: Solar on February 17, 2014, 01:41:08 PM
I do!
I understand your view, so you're saying the Founders were wrong?
Wrong for leaving the articles.... yes.
Quote from: TowardLiberty on February 17, 2014, 03:31:06 PM
Wrong for leaving the articles.... yes.
So the Founders were wrong, and the greatest most productive, inventive Nation in history was a mistake?
You do realize the American experiment is a perfect example as to why your Utopian ideal would never work.
If we, as a Republican form of govt, one based on the rule of law can become this corrupted, what makes you think yours would be any different?
QuoteWhen it comes to facts, I never let innocuous assertions about the goal of TEA go unanswered
I appreciate that, but I think if you surf the so-called Tea Party or "conservative" forums, blogs, and e-zines, you are going to find my concern and observation to be a little more than "an innocuous assertion." I'd do the search myself, but long ago I found bantering back and forth with members on conservative forums to be a waste of time and energy.
On that note, while I am learning to use the quote function, thank you Solar, I've been meaning to add, to
QuoteAnd this constitutes a start toward a meta theory of socialism.
that it might also be a pretty good place to finish it.
Quote from: red_dirt on February 17, 2014, 05:52:09 PM
I appreciate that, but I think if you surf the so-called Tea Party or "conservative" forums, blogs, and e-zines, you are going to find my concern and observation to be a little more than "an innocuous assertion." I'd do the search myself, but long ago I found bantering back and forth with members on conservative forums to be a waste of time and energy.
I understand your point, and that's the reason I pointed out that repeating it does nothing to educate the lib or casual reader of this forum.
I wasn't chastising you, just using your comment as a teaching moment for those trying to learn about Conservatism.
Allow me to repeat something I say quite often. We strive to be a final word in what it means to be a Conservative.
As you obviously know, Conservatism isn't necessarily a political movement, but rather a way of life.
Quote from: Solar on February 17, 2014, 04:28:58 PM
So the Founders were wrong, and the greatest most productive, inventive Nation in history was a mistake?
You do realize the American experiment is a perfect example as to why your Utopian ideal would never work.
If we, as a Republican form of govt, one based on the rule of law can become this corrupted, what makes you think yours would be any different?
Where you see success I see Roman style tyranny heading toward an epic collapse.
I guess that is what separates us.
Obviously a system of polycentric law, which lacks a law monopolist, would not have the same institutional features as a republican form of government. Therein lies an answer to your question.
Quote from: TowardLiberty on February 18, 2014, 02:54:30 PM
Where you see success I see Roman style tyranny heading toward an epic collapse.
I guess that is what separates us.
Obviously a system of polycentric law, which lacks a law monopolist, would not have the same institutional features as a republican form of government. Therein lies an answer to your question.
What makes you so certain your Utopian dream would be anymore successful?
You continue to discount human nature, the need to dominate.
Quote from: Solar on February 18, 2014, 03:12:34 PM
What makes you so certain your Utopian dream would be anymore successful?
You continue to discount human nature, the need to dominate.
How many examples of horizontal legal systems flourishing do we need to read about in history, or be aware of in existence today, to know that it is possible to have a decentralized and reciprocal form of order?
I am not discounting human nature. I am accounting for it. Something followers of Hobbes cannot do.
Quote from: TowardLiberty on February 18, 2014, 03:23:30 PM
How many examples of horizontal legal systems flourishing do we need to read about in history, or be aware of in existence today, to know that it is possible to have a decentralized and reciprocal form of order?
I am not discounting human nature. I am accounting for it. Something followers of Hobbes cannot do.
Sorry TL, you're living in a fantasy if you believe your system won't fail, all Govts fail at some point or another.
Quote from: Solar on February 18, 2014, 03:33:32 PM
Sorry TL, you're living in a fantasy if you believe your system won't fail, all Govts fail at some point or another.
I wouldn't get begin to predict what would or wouldn't happen in the long run.
I only know from history that it is possible to have order, and keep it, without a government.
There is nothing fantastic about that.
Quote from: TowardLiberty on February 19, 2014, 07:14:35 AM
I wouldn't get begin to predict what would or wouldn't happen in the long run.
I only know from history that it is possible to have order, and keep it, without a government.
There is nothing fantastic about that.
TL, I agree, your Utopian system would be great, I'd love to see a nation do it, but I'm also a realist in that human nature is to control ones environment, and that my friend is reality.
Like all systems, they never ever remain as planned, that's the flaw, there is no perfect solution to any problem where humans are involved.
Quote from: Solar on February 19, 2014, 07:41:40 AM
TL, I agree, your Utopian system would be great, I'd love to see a nation do it, but I'm also a realist in that human nature is to control ones environment, and that my friend is reality.
Like all systems, they never ever remain as planned, that's the flaw, there is no perfect solution to any problem where humans are involved.
A couple points.
In light of the history of customary law and horizontal orders, the word "utopian" is indefensible.
You are correct that nothing remains as planned and there is no perfect solution, THAT is why the central authority cannot order society. THAT is why a polycentric order is superior.
Decentralized and horizontal orders have the degrees of freedom to rationally adjust and adapt in a dynamic way.