Liberty in Socialism?

Off Topic Politics and World Issues
41

[quote]florelius wrote:
the thing is that I dont see freedom seperated from the collectiv/society. If humans lived alone in the forest and not in groups as we do no. nobody would talk about freedom, because they would be totally free from other humans, but also totally dependent on them self. as we know humans live in groups in some form. tribes, small willages, states etc. freedom becomes a concept when people live togheter and are depentent on each other. the term freedom/liberty is only interresting in a collectiv/society. freedom is the independence a individual has in the group/collectiv/society. to talk about freedom as something disconected from a group/collectiv/society is pointless and strictly abstract.

as an example of a abstract freedom concept, we can look to Sartre. Sartre said that humans = freedom. in others words, man is the manifistation of freedom. He said that we do always have the freedom to make a choice regardless of the conteks that choiche is taken. lets say you have no money and you have to get a job. the thing is there is only one job you can get, at that is a job is at a brothel as a gigolo. you offcourse dont want to be a gigolo, but its either that or starving. offcourse this is an extrem scenario, but its only to describe sartre. well sartre would say that you do have a choice, even do its beetwen death or daily rape. This is similar to the freedom concepts many in here have, and its not what I regard as a healthy freedom concept, I think it only serves to legitimate the exploiters and failures of the system of today. in other words it does not serve any purpose, because it says that you are always free regardless if you live in a fascist, capitalist or a socialist society.

I would then say that a freedom concept must be a properiory truth, it has to be conteks based.
when the burgeoise rebelled against the late feudalsystem, they fought for freedom from the feudal state. The feudal state with its priviligies for the nobility and its regulations was in direct opposition to the interrests of the burgeois class. So when they talked about freedom, they ment a society where trade where free of regulations and that there property was safe from confiscation. The american revolution was a revolt against british mercantilisme and for home rule. The american burgeois experienced many acts from the british that made them depentent on the british market. one example is the “hat act”. it made it illegal to produce hats in the colonies. So the freedom the american burgeois wanted was freedom from this unfair economic union beetwen america and england. This is an example that freedom is conteks based. Today we have had our burgeois revolutions in the west, and we have gotten rid of the aristocracy and its state. its marks as an progress in human history. but we still have unfreedom in the western society, but the enemy is not a aristocracy, a foreign colonial superpower or an unfair economic union. so it does not make sence to fight for freedom from this entitys I listed above. Whats make sense today in the western world is to fight for freedom from exploitation because its a real issue that hold the majority of the population down.

I answer your question about individual libertys in the socialist matrix later on.

ps. sorry for the wall of text.
[/quote]

You are absolutely correct that Liberty has context within the framework of human interaction - however, that interaction does not have to be conditional upon the existence of the collective or state. An individual can interact with a group/collective/state (GCS from now on) and not be a part of it - thus his liberty has context within that reference, but it is not conditional upon it. In his base state, the individual has liberty. His liberty moves with him as he comes into contact with the GCS, but should not be diminished by his contact with the GCS. At the point that he chooses to become a member of that particular GCS, he may have to surrender some of his liberty in accordance with the terms of the GCS (ie, rule of law in place of blood feud, etc).

I think this is an important factor - socialism focuses on the GCS/Capitalism focuses on the individual.

Here is where the interaction becomes more critical. Within a capitalistic society, the members prize liberty above result and so seek to minimize the surrender of individual liberty at all costs. Within a socialist society, the result is more important and individual liberty is place last on the list of priorities - something to be ignored if it diminishes the GCS result.

Your example illustrates the faulty premises of Marx and all resulting communist and socialist thought - the zero-sum scenario. In your illustration, the individual in a capitalistic society is forced to decide between two extremes: death/prostitution - life in a free society is never limited to such narrow scope - it’s a false analogy. No one in a free society ends up at a position like that without making other choices along the way. Didn’t pursue an education, never stayed at one job long enough to gain a needed skill or trade, wasted his family money on weed, etc. Satre is right that being a human does equal freedom at the base level, but it is a freedom that comes with responsibilities and choices.

I still do not see Liberty in a socialistic society - if I wanted to start a bakery that competes with the government bakery, I am not allowed. If I want to live in Chelsey instead of Berlin but there are no available housing units from the housing ministry, I am not allowed to simply go and build my own on a piece of property I own there. If I want to abandon the collective and go sell roses on the street corner, I am not allowed to do that . . .

The only freedom that Socialism promises the same thing that we saw in the US in the 60’s - freedom from consequence of action. That is the socialist concept of freedom. Don’t want to work really hard - no problem - The freedom of Union promises a mandatory 5 day work week and maximum 8 hour day with mandatory breaks at the maximum amount of pay with 2 months of vacation time plus lifetime healthcare free and retirement pension 100x your salary - sounds like a great deal - except that this “freedom” requires you to do whatever the Union says you must do. You have given up your individual liberty for the freedom of consequence and the security of dependency.

No successfully business person has ever built a personal fortune based on those kind of work conditions. They work hard - 60 to 100 hours a week, every day of the week if necessary, they sacrifice security, risk failure - but the reward is immense and they never have to surrender their liberty. and many fail! yes - there is danger in freedom, there is consequence to action, there is reward for effort.

The socialist ideal ignores the fact that actions have consequences - for instance, let’s examine Greece - social upheaval and riots by UNIONIZED workers upset that they can no longer suck the teat of government money because the government has run out of money. In a capitalist mindset, we simply say ok - let’s balance the budget, makes the cuts we need to make, tighten our belts and work through it. The socialist mindset says - NO! force the government to continue to pay our extravagant wages and funding our overly generous pension regardless of the debts, because we should never have to face the consequences of our laziness and greed - oops!!

What are the Unions seeking as a solution in Greece? Why riot? Why attack the government they have bankrupted? Because the government owes them their salary, their healthcare, their pensions, their everything. They have surrendered their freedom for a payoff and DAMIT! they want their payoff!

42

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:

[quote]florelius wrote:
the thing is that I dont see freedom seperated from the collectiv/society. If humans lived alone in the forest and not in groups as we do no. nobody would talk about freedom, because they would be totally free from other humans, but also totally dependent on them self. as we know humans live in groups in some form. tribes, small willages, states etc. freedom becomes a concept when people live togheter and are depentent on each other. the term freedom/liberty is only interresting in a collectiv/society. freedom is the independence a individual has in the group/collectiv/society. to talk about freedom as something disconected from a group/collectiv/society is pointless and strictly abstract.

as an example of a abstract freedom concept, we can look to Sartre. Sartre said that humans = freedom. in others words, man is the manifistation of freedom. He said that we do always have the freedom to make a choice regardless of the conteks that choiche is taken. lets say you have no money and you have to get a job. the thing is there is only one job you can get, at that is a job is at a brothel as a gigolo. you offcourse dont want to be a gigolo, but its either that or starving. offcourse this is an extrem scenario, but its only to describe sartre. well sartre would say that you do have a choice, even do its beetwen death or daily rape. This is similar to the freedom concepts many in here have, and its not what I regard as a healthy freedom concept, I think it only serves to legitimate the exploiters and failures of the system of today. in other words it does not serve any purpose, because it says that you are always free regardless if you live in a fascist, capitalist or a socialist society.

I would then say that a freedom concept must be a properiory truth, it has to be conteks based.
when the burgeoise rebelled against the late feudalsystem, they fought for freedom from the feudal state. The feudal state with its priviligies for the nobility and its regulations was in direct opposition to the interrests of the burgeois class. So when they talked about freedom, they ment a society where trade where free of regulations and that there property was safe from confiscation. The american revolution was a revolt against british mercantilisme and for home rule. The american burgeois experienced many acts from the british that made them depentent on the british market. one example is the “hat act”. it made it illegal to produce hats in the colonies. So the freedom the american burgeois wanted was freedom from this unfair economic union beetwen america and england. This is an example that freedom is conteks based. Today we have had our burgeois revolutions in the west, and we have gotten rid of the aristocracy and its state. its marks as an progress in human history. but we still have unfreedom in the western society, but the enemy is not a aristocracy, a foreign colonial superpower or an unfair economic union. so it does not make sence to fight for freedom from this entitys I listed above. Whats make sense today in the western world is to fight for freedom from exploitation because its a real issue that hold the majority of the population down.

I answer your question about individual libertys in the socialist matrix later on.

ps. sorry for the wall of text.
[/quote]

You are absolutely correct that Liberty has context within the framework of human interaction - however, that interaction does not have to be conditional upon the existence of the collective or state. An individual can interact with a group/collective/state (GCS from now on) and not be a part of it - thus his liberty has context within that reference, but it is not conditional upon it. In his base state, the individual has liberty. His liberty moves with him as he comes into contact with the GCS, but should not be diminished by his contact with the GCS. At the point that he chooses to become a member of that particular GCS, he may have to surrender some of his liberty in accordance with the terms of the GCS (ie, rule of law in place of blood feud, etc).

I think this is an important factor - socialism focuses on the GCS/Capitalism focuses on the individual.

Here is where the interaction becomes more critical. Within a capitalistic society, the members prize liberty above result and so seek to minimize the surrender of individual liberty at all costs. Within a socialist society, the result is more important and individual liberty is place last on the list of priorities - something to be ignored if it diminishes the GCS result.

Your example illustrates the faulty premises of Marx and all resulting communist and socialist thought - the zero-sum scenario. In your illustration, the individual in a capitalistic society is forced to decide between two extremes: death/prostitution - life in a free society is never limited to such narrow scope - it’s a false analogy. No one in a free society ends up at a position like that without making other choices along the way. Didn’t pursue an education, never stayed at one job long enough to gain a needed skill or trade, wasted his family money on weed, etc. Satre is right that being a human does equal freedom at the base level, but it is a freedom that comes with responsibilities and choices.

I still do not see Liberty in a socialistic society - if I wanted to start a bakery that competes with the government bakery, I am not allowed. If I want to live in Chelsey instead of Berlin but there are no available housing units from the housing ministry, I am not allowed to simply go and build my own on a piece of property I own there. If I want to abandon the collective and go sell roses on the street corner, I am not allowed to do that . . .

The only freedom that Socialism promises the same thing that we saw in the US in the 60’s - freedom from consequence of action. That is the socialist concept of freedom. Don’t want to work really hard - no problem - The freedom of Union promises a mandatory 5 day work week and maximum 8 hour day with mandatory breaks at the maximum amount of pay with 2 months of vacation time plus lifetime healthcare free and retirement pension 100x your salary - sounds like a great deal - except that this “freedom” requires you to do whatever the Union says you must do. You have given up your individual liberty for the freedom of consequence and the security of dependency.

No successfully business person has ever built a personal fortune based on those kind of work conditions. They work hard - 60 to 100 hours a week, every day of the week if necessary, they sacrifice security, risk failure - but the reward is immense and they never have to surrender their liberty. and many fail! yes - there is danger in freedom, there is consequence to action, there is reward for effort.

The socialist ideal ignores the fact that actions have consequences - for instance, let’s examine Greece - social upheaval and riots by UNIONIZED workers upset that they can no longer suck the teat of government money because the government has run out of money. In a capitalist mindset, we simply say ok - let’s balance the budget, makes the cuts we need to make, tighten our belts and work through it. The socialist mindset says - NO! force the government to continue to pay our extravagant wages and funding our overly generous pension regardless of the debts, because we should never have to face the consequences of our laziness and greed - oops!!

What are the Unions seeking as a solution in Greece? Why riot? Why attack the government they have bankrupted? Because the government owes them their salary, their healthcare, their pensions, their everything. They have surrendered their freedom for a payoff and DAMIT! they want their payoff!
[/quote]

Good post.

But I think most of you on this thread are creating straw-men to break-down, even you IrishSteel. I don’t think you have to buy into, or adopt a philosophy to acknowledge what merits it does have. Your post seems to deny the fact that a good number of people, through no fault of their own, are born into a really shitty situation, and are unable to get out of it, where someone else with their same morality and aptitude is born with a silver spoon in their mouths is considered a capitalistic success story. For whatever flaws socialism has (and it has many: I don’t advocate it), the goal is to eliminate that unfairness.

Yes, you can give me a handful of examples (maybe you even know someone), who was both lucky, hard-working, and intelligent enough to move from a shit situation to success, but that is the minority. Most Americans grow up, live and die in the same socioeconomic class.

Someone posted earlier that it’s about group liberty as well. But you can look at every phenomenon in either context: socialism offers “freedom from” to the individual, rather than “freedom to”, like a more libertine society does. Freedom from discrimination, freedom from (absolute) poverty, freedom from disease and the effects of natural disaster (to the extent possible), freedom from inequality, exe. To say there is no merit to that is bullshit.

To say it’s not worth sacrificing the “freedom to” is fair, and something I agree with.

You can’t have a real conversation, and govern (I use the term loosely) a society like ours without at least acknowledging the theoretical merits of the other side’s ideas: there is something to the idea that no one goes hungry, and no one goes untreated. Reminding them that life’s not fair is not an argument against them saying they want to use the political process to make life as fair as possible. So when you make the other side in to straw men, you ultimately do yourself a disservice.

43

but that is just it, he has evey right to get angry. Your opinion on how society should function takes away from productive member like him, steals from him. His does not do that to you, it just doesn’t give to you because you do not produce.

44

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Socialism is freedom from exploitation??? WTF?!

The very nature of socialism is exploitation precisely because it must create a slave class to do all the work.

edited for clarity[/quote]
Pure “free market” politics makes the strong prey on the weak, much like the slave holders in earlier Confederate states. I would say there is more slave working in a country without any form of socialism.

Is there any countries with the kind of socialism you people cry about?

45

Correction to the prior note - slavery existed throughout all of the United States not just in the confederate states . . .New York City was the center of the American slave trade . . . anyhoo - back to the discussion

46

[quote]espenl wrote:
Pure “free market” politics makes the strong prey on the weak…[/quote]

Free market is not politics. It is the absence of politics.

Do you think that politics in general is not the “strong preying on the weak”?

There will always be exploitative people – the can be politicians as much as business men.

However, under a capitalistic system the playing field is leveled precisely because the markets are free and competition is open to any one with better ideas and abilities. Thus society will always be much better off than it would be if it were being directed by some exploitative central planning agency.

I guess what I am really trying to say is: exploitation is not mutually exclusive to capitalism. It exists because people are immoral not because they believe in “free trade”.

47

[quote]PAINTRAINDave wrote:
There’s no point in even discussing pure socialism: it will never happen (much like pure capitalism).

Social-democracy is a possibility: and I think it can work well in a stable post-industrial democracy.
[/quote]
Agreed.

If the idea portrayed of socialism is that everyone (except the 2.6% unemployed) in Norway works doing different kinds of jobs, and everyone including those unemployed gets the exact kind of paycheck, it would suck. A good thing then, that the pay is varied.

48

[quote]Spartiates wrote:
Good post.

But I think most of you on this thread are creating straw-men to break-down, even you IrishSteel. I don’t think you have to buy into, or adopt a philosophy to acknowledge what merits it does have. Your post seems to deny the fact that a good number of people, through no fault of their own, are born into a really shitty situation, and are unable to get out of it, where someone else with their same morality and aptitude is born with a silver spoon in their mouths is considered a capitalistic success story. For whatever flaws socialism has (and it has many: I don’t advocate it), the goal is to eliminate that unfairness.

Yes, you can give me a handful of examples (maybe you even know someone), who was both lucky, hard-working, and intelligent enough to move from a shit situation to success, but that is the minority. Most Americans grow up, live and die in the same socioeconomic class.

Someone posted earlier that it’s about group liberty as well. But you can look at every phenomenon in either context: socialism offers “freedom from” to the individual, rather than “freedom to”, like a more libertine society does. Freedom from discrimination, freedom from (absolute) poverty, freedom from disease and the effects of natural disaster (to the extent possible), freedom from inequality, exe. To say there is no merit to that is bullshit.

To say it’s not worth sacrificing the “freedom to” is fair, and something I agree with.

You can’t have a real conversation, and govern (I use the term loosely) a society like ours without at least acknowledging the theoretical merits of the other side’s ideas: there is something to the idea that no one goes hungry, and no one goes untreated. Reminding them that life’s not fair is not an argument against them saying they want to use the political process to make life as fair as possible. So when you make the other side in to straw men, you ultimately do yourself a disservice.[/quote]

Thanks Spartiates - love the name!

OK, you’re right it is very easy for each side to create starw men to destroy, that is why I am trying to draw Flo into more detailed discussion. So that we can actually examine our individual belief structures and see what kernels of truth lie within.

And I agree that socialism stated ideal of “fairness for all” is admirable. BUT, it is not practical - because someone has to be the judge of what is fair - and imperfect man will never achieve true fairness.

It was because of this basic reality of man’s nature that capitalism was chosen as the system of economics within Western Civilizations. It is also why we adopted equality under the law and not “fairness” or “social justice” under the law as our normative state as citizens in America. It is also why Judeo-Christian principles including charity are a prerequisite under our system of government and economics.

49

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
I guess what I am really trying to say is: exploitation is not mutually exclusive to capitalism. It exists because people are immoral not because they believe in “free trade”.[/quote]

I agree. There will be exploitation regardless of politics.

Sharing the “goods” in a manner that removes desperation from the weak, will save more in the long run from decreased crime. Giving most of what a resourceful person makes to a lazy slacker is something I think we can all agree is not right.

50

But do you understand that there will be more goods to share without central planning mucking up the works. Not only that, a prosperous society is more willing to share. Instead of putting your faith is some politician to “fix a problem” you should redirect your faith to free people who desire to do good without being forced or told to.

In the USSR people thought the same as you yet they were on the verge of starving before it finally collapsed. Why?

51

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

In the USSR people thought the same as you yet they were on the verge of starving before it finally collapsed. Why?[/quote]

But this time it will be different.

52

[quote]John S. wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

In the USSR people thought the same as you yet they were on the verge of starving before it finally collapsed. Why?[/quote]

But this time it will be different.[/quote]

Because the USSR was not real socialism. It was Capitalism with a Welfare State.

53

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]John S. wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

In the USSR people thought the same as you yet they were on the verge of starving before it finally collapsed. Why?[/quote]

But this time it will be different.[/quote]

Because the USSR was not real socialism. It was Capitalism with a Welfare State.[/quote]

Was this intended to make me worry less?

That is a really fine line anyways. At some point the line between a free market worker/earner and a government employee become blurred. If a corporation pays more in taxes than they make in profit, isn’t it more fair to call them government employees? Isn’t it more fit to refer to the company as a government asset?

54

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]John S. wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

In the USSR people thought the same as you yet they were on the verge of starving before it finally collapsed. Why?[/quote]

But this time it will be different.[/quote]

Because the USSR was not real socialism. It was Capitalism with a Welfare State.[/quote]

How could it have been “capitalism” if there was no provate ownership of the means of production?

I like how you blame capitalism for the failures of socialism – the old bait and switch.

And yes, the USSR was socialism and the new Russia is still socialism but now they get to vote on the theft that will take place instead of it being dictated to them – yay!

55

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:

[quote]florelius wrote:
the thing is that I dont see freedom seperated from the collectiv/society. If humans lived alone in the forest and not in groups as we do no. nobody would talk about freedom, because they would be totally free from other humans, but also totally dependent on them self. as we know humans live in groups in some form. tribes, small willages, states etc. freedom becomes a concept when people live togheter and are depentent on each other. the term freedom/liberty is only interresting in a collectiv/society. freedom is the independence a individual has in the group/collectiv/society. to talk about freedom as something disconected from a group/collectiv/society is pointless and strictly abstract.

as an example of a abstract freedom concept, we can look to Sartre. Sartre said that humans = freedom. in others words, man is the manifistation of freedom. He said that we do always have the freedom to make a choice regardless of the conteks that choiche is taken. lets say you have no money and you have to get a job. the thing is there is only one job you can get, at that is a job is at a brothel as a gigolo. you offcourse dont want to be a gigolo, but its either that or starving. offcourse this is an extrem scenario, but its only to describe sartre. well sartre would say that you do have a choice, even do its beetwen death or daily rape. This is similar to the freedom concepts many in here have, and its not what I regard as a healthy freedom concept, I think it only serves to legitimate the exploiters and failures of the system of today. in other words it does not serve any purpose, because it says that you are always free regardless if you live in a fascist, capitalist or a socialist society.

I would then say that a freedom concept must be a properiory truth, it has to be conteks based.
when the burgeoise rebelled against the late feudalsystem, they fought for freedom from the feudal state. The feudal state with its priviligies for the nobility and its regulations was in direct opposition to the interrests of the burgeois class. So when they talked about freedom, they ment a society where trade where free of regulations and that there property was safe from confiscation. The american revolution was a revolt against british mercantilisme and for home rule. The american burgeois experienced many acts from the british that made them depentent on the british market. one example is the “hat act”. it made it illegal to produce hats in the colonies. So the freedom the american burgeois wanted was freedom from this unfair economic union beetwen america and england. This is an example that freedom is conteks based. Today we have had our burgeois revolutions in the west, and we have gotten rid of the aristocracy and its state. its marks as an progress in human history. but we still have unfreedom in the western society, but the enemy is not a aristocracy, a foreign colonial superpower or an unfair economic union. so it does not make sence to fight for freedom from this entitys I listed above. Whats make sense today in the western world is to fight for freedom from exploitation because its a real issue that hold the majority of the population down.

I answer your question about individual libertys in the socialist matrix later on.

ps. sorry for the wall of text.
[/quote]

You are absolutely correct that Liberty has context within the framework of human interaction - however, that interaction does not have to be conditional upon the existence of the collective or state. An individual can interact with a group/collective/state (GCS from now on) and not be a part of it - thus his liberty has context within that reference, but it is not conditional upon it. In his base state, the individual has liberty. His liberty moves with him as he comes into contact with the GCS, but should not be diminished by his contact with the GCS. At the point that he chooses to become a member of that particular GCS, he may have to surrender some of his liberty in accordance with the terms of the GCS (ie, rule of law in place of blood feud, etc).

I think this is an important factor - socialism focuses on the GCS/Capitalism focuses on the individual.

Here is where the interaction becomes more critical. Within a capitalistic society, the members prize liberty above result and so seek to minimize the surrender of individual liberty at all costs. Within a socialist society, the result is more important and individual liberty is place last on the list of priorities - something to be ignored if it diminishes the GCS result.

Your example illustrates the faulty premises of Marx and all resulting communist and socialist thought - the zero-sum scenario. In your illustration, the individual in a capitalistic society is forced to decide between two extremes: death/prostitution - life in a free society is never limited to such narrow scope - it’s a false analogy. No one in a free society ends up at a position like that without making other choices along the way. Didn’t pursue an education, never stayed at one job long enough to gain a needed skill or trade, wasted his family money on weed, etc. Satre is right that being a human does equal freedom at the base level, but it is a freedom that comes with responsibilities and choices.

I still do not see Liberty in a socialistic society - if I wanted to start a bakery that competes with the government bakery, I am not allowed. If I want to live in Chelsey instead of Berlin but there are no available housing units from the housing ministry, I am not allowed to simply go and build my own on a piece of property I own there. If I want to abandon the collective and go sell roses on the street corner, I am not allowed to do that . . .

The only freedom that Socialism promises the same thing that we saw in the US in the 60’s - freedom from consequence of action. That is the socialist concept of freedom. Don’t want to work really hard - no problem - The freedom of Union promises a mandatory 5 day work week and maximum 8 hour day with mandatory breaks at the maximum amount of pay with 2 months of vacation time plus lifetime healthcare free and retirement pension 100x your salary - sounds like a great deal - except that this “freedom” requires you to do whatever the Union says you must do. You have given up your individual liberty for the freedom of consequence and the security of dependency.

No successfully business person has ever built a personal fortune based on those kind of work conditions. They work hard - 60 to 100 hours a week, every day of the week if necessary, they sacrifice security, risk failure - but the reward is immense and they never have to surrender their liberty. and many fail! yes - there is danger in freedom, there is consequence to action, there is reward for effort.

The socialist ideal ignores the fact that actions have consequences - for instance, let’s examine Greece - social upheaval and riots by UNIONIZED workers upset that they can no longer suck the teat of government money because the government has run out of money. In a capitalist mindset, we simply say ok - let’s balance the budget, makes the cuts we need to make, tighten our belts and work through it. The socialist mindset says - NO! force the government to continue to pay our extravagant wages and funding our overly generous pension regardless of the debts, because we should never have to face the consequences of our laziness and greed - oops!!

What are the Unions seeking as a solution in Greece? Why riot? Why attack the government they have bankrupted? Because the government owes them their salary, their healthcare, their pensions, their everything. They have surrendered their freedom for a payoff and DAMIT! they want their payoff!
[/quote]

ok first I want to say I havent slept for 24hours because of a examen, so this reply can be a bit funky:P

the scenario was not to illustrait real life in capitalisme ( even doe such scenarios have happend ), but to illustrait the freedom concept of sartre.

I do set the individual very hig, and I think that the societys purpose is to improve the individuals life. remember I am a marxist, not a fascist. the fascists said that the individual is for the state. I think that is stupid. a state is just a entity that governs society with a gun, offcourse the individual are more importent that the state. But as a marxist I am an materialist not a idealist. So I look at how the society today are. The society today is a higly collectivist form of organisation. People live in groups( families ) it works in groups, and everybody is dependent on each other because of the industrial market economy, the irony is that, even doe society is collectivist, the importent decisions are taken by the few. the profit are taken by the few, even doe the society produced it collectively( the factory worker is only able to take the time to work at the factory, if someone else are producing the foods he consums and this goes for everybody in a modern industrial capitalist society ). We marxist say, hey this is not right. Why should only 20% of the team get the most of the fruits of the effort, when the entire team made it togheter. This is the thougt behind the socialist perception of explotation btw. this thus maybe not have so much to do with liberty. but ok, the logic statement for this is: collectiv matters should be taken by the collectiv. and the fruits of the collectiv labour should be shared by the collectiv. and to follow it trough the logic takes us here: individual matters should be taken by the individual. and the fruits of the individual labour should be enjoyed by the individual.

a picture of individual labour in socialisme could be this: let say you play and sing on the street for money, that money is yours. or lets say you bake some breads at home, and sell them to your neigbours, that money is yours alone. When we say means of production, we meen factorys, natural resources( gas, oil a.s.), forests, big farms, collectiv traffic, schools, hospitals etc. in other words big production and services. While stuff you can create at home and so one is still private. ( maybe there are some socialists that will make selling of home made bread illegal, but I dont see the reason for this ). To make it relevant to T-Nation. you can still be a personel trainer in socialisme.

hope this gave you irish steel a better understanding of my political philosophi.

56

Flo - thanks - I know how tough those exam cram sessions can be. Hope you did well.

OK, that does shed more light on your perspective. That leads me to this question: if the state controls the means of production, does it stand to reason that the individual has to be subordinate to the state (thus having less freedom) because food, energy, housing are all controlled by the state. If the state were run by evil men, it becomes an unbearable tyranny over the individual. if the state were run by cruel men, it becomes the death of the individual. if the state were run by uncaring man, it leads to the neglect of the individual - and I know evil, cruel and uncaring people gain power so it seems an inevitability . . .

I just don’t see the freedom in allowing the state to control so much of an individuals life - did I miss something in your explanation?

Yes, I can create somehting at home, but only if i have access to the resources and means of production in even a small sense - sorry - tired myself, and I seem to be grasping for more content than you provided - I think we have more blanks to fill in here.

57

[quote]florelius wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]florelius wrote:
I am going to put it very simple.

freedom in socialisme = freedom from exploitation. This meens that you dont have the right to the fruits of others labor, in other words: you dont have the freedom to get rich on the expens of others. Now I know some here will say that “but doesnt the individual worker get exploited by the collective”. well maybe in some abstract sence, but in a modern society with industry, people work in groups. there are non car factorys with only one worker. So to be clear, when I say exploitation I dont meen that the car factory worker doesnt get grain from the agrarian worker and vice verca, I meen that there are no person or group of people who takes out a profit from the labor of the car factory worker and the agrarian worker. Now if the factorys/workplaces should be owned by the community/country etc or if it should be owned in common by the workers on the individual workplace is a decision the people must make in the socialist society.

btw: people does also have freedoms like: freedom of speech, of organisation and of tought. [/quote]

I have always seen a glaring flaw in this defense of freedom in the practice of socialism. In a capitalist society all arrangements are voluntary. That is to say, no one can be literally forced to enter into any arrangement of employment/compensation/ect. No one can ever be forced to work at a specific place. The only way anyone can be forcibly taken advantage of is through government. How on earth can you argue that a factory is taking advantage of a worker when the worker has chosen and continues to choose employment at the place to all other alternatives they are free to choose?

Further, what if I get rich selling my paintings? Who am I exploiting? How can you justify the community having a right to my success. The community nationalizing my earnings is the only way I can truly be victimized. All other actions are voluntary.
[/quote]

where in my post did I say you cannot sell your own paintings? I said that you cant get rich on the expense of others.

Did I choose to be born in a capitalist society without any productiv property, no I did not. no societys are totally voluntary. I work where I work because I need the money, I did not have childhood dream of working at a supermarked. capitalisme/liberalisme sounds find on paper. but its a tyranny in the real life. the society you talk about could be possible in a pre-industrial age. a society consisting of indepentent farmers and artisans wich all owned there own property ( jeffersonian republicanisme ). while today the society and economy are bigger and more complex and it takes a different system than liberalisme to create a society that can grant the most freedom.

If I lived in a pre-industrial society I would have been a jeffersonian republican.[/quote]

Be patient with me, I am having a difficulty reading what you say. How do people get exploited by companies? And no, you do not have a choice as to where you were born, your parents do, however you can move.

58

[quote]florelius wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]florelius wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]florelius wrote:
I am going to put it very simple.

freedom in socialisme = freedom from exploitation. This meens that you dont have the right to the fruits of others labor, in other words: you dont have the freedom to get rich on the expens of others. Now I know some here will say that “but doesnt the individual worker get exploited by the collective”. well maybe in some abstract sence, but in a modern society with industry, people work in groups. there are non car factorys with only one worker. So to be clear, when I say exploitation I dont meen that the car factory worker doesnt get grain from the agrarian worker and vice verca, I meen that there are no person or group of people who takes out a profit from the labor of the car factory worker and the agrarian worker. Now if the factorys/workplaces should be owned by the community/country etc or if it should be owned in common by the workers on the individual workplace is a decision the people must make in the socialist society.

btw: people does also have freedoms like: freedom of speech, of organisation and of tought. [/quote]

I have always seen a glaring flaw in this defense of freedom in the practice of socialism. In a capitalist society all arrangements are voluntary. That is to say, no one can be literally forced to enter into any arrangement of employment/compensation/ect. No one can ever be forced to work at a specific place. The only way anyone can be forcibly taken advantage of is through government. How on earth can you argue that a factory is taking advantage of a worker when the worker has chosen and continues to choose employment at the place to all other alternatives they are free to choose?

Further, what if I get rich selling my paintings? Who am I exploiting? How can you justify the community having a right to my success. The community nationalizing my earnings is the only way I can truly be victimized. All other actions are voluntary.
[/quote]

where in my post did I say you cannot sell your own paintings? I said that you cant get rich on the expense of others.

Did I choose to be born in a capitalist society without any productiv property, no I did not. no societys are totally voluntary. I work where I work because I need the money, I did not have childhood dream of working at a supermarked. capitalisme/liberalisme sounds find on paper. but its a tyranny in the real life. the society you talk about could be possible in a pre-industrial age. a society consisting of indepentent farmers and artisans wich all owned there own property ( jeffersonian republicanisme ). while today the society and economy are bigger and more complex and it takes a different system than liberalisme to create a society that can grant the most freedom.

If I lived in a pre-industrial society I would have been a jeffersonian republican.[/quote]

So basically you beleive as the original Unions that were organized to help the common workers? I will say that the original Unions formed around 1900 give or take a few decades were needed, but in this day in time of all the information on the internet, and the legal system and government regulation the unions are no longer needed. The unions are no more than an organized mob asking for more money and more benefits at the expense of the people who have taken the risk to set up the company in the first place. The workers are no longer taken advantage of. I believe that the investors are the ones being taken advantage of. Look at the Auto companies GM and Chrysler. Both companies stock and bond holders got shit out of the agreement the Government and Unions came up with. This is socialism at its finest. Take from the people willing to sacrifice to save some money and lend it to a company, and the people who run the unions are the ones that get the money, and not the workers.[/quote]

we dont have socialisme today. the are no stock holders in socialisme. wall street is shut down lol.

unions where importent, are importent and will always be importent. free unions will also be importent in socialisme. whats bad is staterun unions.

[/quote]

Yes so are state ran businesses. We happen to have both in America, which is why I would not say we are a good example of capitalism, better than most though.

Second, there was not some universal shift in natural law around the Industrial Revolution, right is still right.

59

[quote]florelius wrote:

[quote]Dabba wrote:

[quote]florelius wrote:
Today we have had our burgeois revolutions in the west, and we have gotten rid of the aristocracy and its state. its marks as an progress in human history. but we still have unfreedom in the western society, but the enemy is not a aristocracy, a foreign colonial superpower or an unfair economic union. so it does not make sence to fight for freedom from this entitys I listed above. Whats make sense today in the western world is to fight for freedom from exploitation because its a real issue that hold the majority of the population down.
[/quote]

See, this is where I get confused with Marxists. Do you not realize that in your efforts to help the “proletariat” you have actually created a new quasi-aristocracy that is supported by the state? Do you actually think that mounds of government regulations that are often lobbied for by big business actually help the little guy? Who do you think taxes hurt the most? Certainly not the people who own the business, as they just pass down costs to their workers or the consumers.

I know that true Marxism doesn’t necessarily have anything to do with regulations or taxes, but you have acknowledged that the state needs to be strengthened in order to attain a communist society. I think this is the flaw in Marxism. The state needs to be strengthened in order to eliminate Capitalism, I agree with that, but it never works out the way you guys want it to. It’s always two elites forming an unholy alliance with one another instead of just one bad elite. Big business can get ugly, but give me that elite class over big government + big business any day.[/quote]

marxists and socialliberalist/socialdemocrats are not the same thing. Do you think I am in favor of an alliance beetwen capital and the burgeois state. I am offcourse not. The burgeois state is just that, the burgeois state. it takes any action that are required to protect the burgeois class. be it small government or big government. When we marxists say capitalisme, we dont meen the utopian dream of orion. our definition is a class society, where the burgeois have the power over the market and the state. socialisme from a marxist perspectiv meens a class society where the proletariat have the power over the economy and the state. So we dont want the state of today to get to strong, because this state is our enemy and we must maybe fight against it today. So dont blame the policys of the capitalist state on us marxist. Blame it on the burgeois.[/quote]

That is where you are flawed, what you call capitalism is not capitalism, it is mercantilism, there is a difference and you need to recognize that because otherwise you do not make sense.

60

[quote]Spartiates wrote:

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:

[quote]florelius wrote:
the thing is that I dont see freedom seperated from the collectiv/society. If humans lived alone in the forest and not in groups as we do no. nobody would talk about freedom, because they would be totally free from other humans, but also totally dependent on them self. as we know humans live in groups in some form. tribes, small willages, states etc. freedom becomes a concept when people live togheter and are depentent on each other. the term freedom/liberty is only interresting in a collectiv/society. freedom is the independence a individual has in the group/collectiv/society. to talk about freedom as something disconected from a group/collectiv/society is pointless and strictly abstract.

as an example of a abstract freedom concept, we can look to Sartre. Sartre said that humans = freedom. in others words, man is the manifistation of freedom. He said that we do always have the freedom to make a choice regardless of the conteks that choiche is taken. lets say you have no money and you have to get a job. the thing is there is only one job you can get, at that is a job is at a brothel as a gigolo. you offcourse dont want to be a gigolo, but its either that or starving. offcourse this is an extrem scenario, but its only to describe sartre. well sartre would say that you do have a choice, even do its beetwen death or daily rape. This is similar to the freedom concepts many in here have, and its not what I regard as a healthy freedom concept, I think it only serves to legitimate the exploiters and failures of the system of today. in other words it does not serve any purpose, because it says that you are always free regardless if you live in a fascist, capitalist or a socialist society.

I would then say that a freedom concept must be a properiory truth, it has to be conteks based.
when the burgeoise rebelled against the late feudalsystem, they fought for freedom from the feudal state. The feudal state with its priviligies for the nobility and its regulations was in direct opposition to the interrests of the burgeois class. So when they talked about freedom, they ment a society where trade where free of regulations and that there property was safe from confiscation. The american revolution was a revolt against british mercantilisme and for home rule. The american burgeois experienced many acts from the british that made them depentent on the british market. one example is the “hat act”. it made it illegal to produce hats in the colonies. So the freedom the american burgeois wanted was freedom from this unfair economic union beetwen america and england. This is an example that freedom is conteks based. Today we have had our burgeois revolutions in the west, and we have gotten rid of the aristocracy and its state. its marks as an progress in human history. but we still have unfreedom in the western society, but the enemy is not a aristocracy, a foreign colonial superpower or an unfair economic union. so it does not make sence to fight for freedom from this entitys I listed above. Whats make sense today in the western world is to fight for freedom from exploitation because its a real issue that hold the majority of the population down.

I answer your question about individual libertys in the socialist matrix later on.

ps. sorry for the wall of text.
[/quote]

You are absolutely correct that Liberty has context within the framework of human interaction - however, that interaction does not have to be conditional upon the existence of the collective or state. An individual can interact with a group/collective/state (GCS from now on) and not be a part of it - thus his liberty has context within that reference, but it is not conditional upon it. In his base state, the individual has liberty. His liberty moves with him as he comes into contact with the GCS, but should not be diminished by his contact with the GCS. At the point that he chooses to become a member of that particular GCS, he may have to surrender some of his liberty in accordance with the terms of the GCS (ie, rule of law in place of blood feud, etc).

I think this is an important factor - socialism focuses on the GCS/Capitalism focuses on the individual.

Here is where the interaction becomes more critical. Within a capitalistic society, the members prize liberty above result and so seek to minimize the surrender of individual liberty at all costs. Within a socialist society, the result is more important and individual liberty is place last on the list of priorities - something to be ignored if it diminishes the GCS result.

Your example illustrates the faulty premises of Marx and all resulting communist and socialist thought - the zero-sum scenario. In your illustration, the individual in a capitalistic society is forced to decide between two extremes: death/prostitution - life in a free society is never limited to such narrow scope - it’s a false analogy. No one in a free society ends up at a position like that without making other choices along the way. Didn’t pursue an education, never stayed at one job long enough to gain a needed skill or trade, wasted his family money on weed, etc. Satre is right that being a human does equal freedom at the base level, but it is a freedom that comes with responsibilities and choices.

I still do not see Liberty in a socialistic society - if I wanted to start a bakery that competes with the government bakery, I am not allowed. If I want to live in Chelsey instead of Berlin but there are no available housing units from the housing ministry, I am not allowed to simply go and build my own on a piece of property I own there. If I want to abandon the collective and go sell roses on the street corner, I am not allowed to do that . . .

The only freedom that Socialism promises the same thing that we saw in the US in the 60’s - freedom from consequence of action. That is the socialist concept of freedom. Don’t want to work really hard - no problem - The freedom of Union promises a mandatory 5 day work week and maximum 8 hour day with mandatory breaks at the maximum amount of pay with 2 months of vacation time plus lifetime healthcare free and retirement pension 100x your salary - sounds like a great deal - except that this “freedom” requires you to do whatever the Union says you must do. You have given up your individual liberty for the freedom of consequence and the security of dependency.

No successfully business person has ever built a personal fortune based on those kind of work conditions. They work hard - 60 to 100 hours a week, every day of the week if necessary, they sacrifice security, risk failure - but the reward is immense and they never have to surrender their liberty. and many fail! yes - there is danger in freedom, there is consequence to action, there is reward for effort.

The socialist ideal ignores the fact that actions have consequences - for instance, let’s examine Greece - social upheaval and riots by UNIONIZED workers upset that they can no longer suck the teat of government money because the government has run out of money. In a capitalist mindset, we simply say ok - let’s balance the budget, makes the cuts we need to make, tighten our belts and work through it. The socialist mindset says - NO! force the government to continue to pay our extravagant wages and funding our overly generous pension regardless of the debts, because we should never have to face the consequences of our laziness and greed - oops!!

What are the Unions seeking as a solution in Greece? Why riot? Why attack the government they have bankrupted? Because the government owes them their salary, their healthcare, their pensions, their everything. They have surrendered their freedom for a payoff and DAMIT! they want their payoff!
[/quote]

Good post.

But I think most of you on this thread are creating straw-men to break-down, even you IrishSteel. I don’t think you have to buy into, or adopt a philosophy to acknowledge what merits it does have. Your post seems to deny the fact that a good number of people, through no fault of their own, are born into a really shitty situation, and are unable to get out of it, where someone else with their same morality and aptitude is born with a silver spoon in their mouths is considered a capitalistic success story. For whatever flaws socialism has (and it has many: I don’t advocate it), the goal is to eliminate that unfairness.

Yes, you can give me a handful of examples (maybe you even know someone), who was both lucky, hard-working, and intelligent enough to move from a shit situation to success, but that is the minority. Most Americans grow up, live and die in the same socioeconomic class.

Someone posted earlier that it’s about group liberty as well. But you can look at every phenomenon in either context: socialism offers “freedom from” to the individual, rather than “freedom to”, like a more libertine society does. Freedom from discrimination, freedom from (absolute) poverty, freedom from disease and the effects of natural disaster (to the extent possible), freedom from inequality, exe. To say there is no merit to that is bullshit.

To say it’s not worth sacrificing the “freedom to” is fair, and something I agree with.

You can’t have a real conversation, and govern (I use the term loosely) a society like ours without at least acknowledging the theoretical merits of the other side’s ideas: there is something to the idea that no one goes hungry, and no one goes untreated. Reminding them that life’s not fair is not an argument against them saying they want to use the political process to make life as fair as possible. So when you make the other side in to straw men, you ultimately do yourself a disservice.[/quote]

Yes, but you cannot justify aggression. I would love to feed everyone in the world and make sure their health care is paid for, but because the state can only do it through aggression I do not condone it or consider it.