If that particular turn of the conversation has now been settled, I'd like to go back to AFZ's suggestion that as a socialist he believes that health, education and some categories ("pure" ? "basic" ?) of scientific research should be provided by the state and the market should play no part.
Two questions:
1) Why these ?
2) given a willingness to include aero engines in the list of things that are provided by the state if the circumstances where it seems appropriate to do so should arise, is there within socialist thinking any limit on what the state should do ? Any right to own things and to trade things which the government cannot set aside if it wishes to ? Any safeguard against a slide into the government owning/controlling everything ?
If that particular turn of the conversation has now been settled, I'd like to go back to AFZ's suggestion that as a socialist he believes that health, education and some categories ("pure" ? "basic" ?) of scientific research should be provided by the state and the market should play no part.
Two questions:
1) Why these ?
2) given a willingness to include aero engines in the list of things that are provided by the state if the circumstances where it seems appropriate to do so should arise, is there within socialist thinking any limit on what the state should do ? Any right to own things and to trade things which the government cannot set aside if it wishes to ? Any safeguard against a slide into the government owning/controlling everything ?
The long answer is quite complicated and definitely worthy of debate.
The short answer which I hope will lead to meaningful discussion is this: market failure.
Wherever there is - or likely to be - market failure, the state should step in (in part or whole). Why? Because by doing so, the result is an increase in well-being as well as often wealth and sometimes personal freedom too.
"Democratic socialism is a political philosophy supporting political democracy within a socially owned economy."
And at the end of the first paragraph:
" As a term, democratic socialism was popularised by social democrats and other socialists who were opposed to the authoritarian socialist development in Russia and elsewhere during the 20th century."
Don't you think that in all honesty you should have quoted the whole of the first paragraph? It reads:
" Democratic socialism is a political philosophy supporting political democracy within a socially owned economy, with a particular emphasis on economic democracy, workplace democracy and workers' self-management within a market socialist economy or some form of a decentralised planned socialist economy. Democratic socialists argue that capitalism is inherently incompatible with the values of freedom, equality and solidarity and that these ideals can only be achieved through the realisation of a socialist society. Although most democratic socialists seek a gradual transition to socialism, democratic socialism can support either revolutionary or reformist politics as means to establish socialism. As a term, democratic socialism was popularised by social democrats and other socialists who were opposed to the authoritarian socialist development in Russia and elsewhere during the 20th century."
ISTM this paragraph recognises the two approaches to Democratic Socialism that I was indicating. If, however, "Democratic Socialists argue that capitalism is inherently incompatible with the value of freedom", then I find it difficult to see how Democratic Socialists can support conventional liberal democracy. On the other hand, I recognise that the contributors to these posts are socialists who are primarily democrats, whose gradualism has led them to recognise the legitimacy of capitalist-friendly governments.
No. It does NOT recognise that. You are reading that into it. You see stuff about establishing a socialist society and decide that this is all about abolishing democracy, and it doesn't actually say that.
EDIT: And quite frankly, your continued insistence that somehow there's a version of democratic socialism that involves abolishing democracy is just bizarre.
A "conventional liberal democracy" (at least as we know it in western Europe) has a mix of socialist, capitalist, feudalism and other forms of economic and social policies in regular flux at the borders of these as political power shifts between parties with different emphases. Of course, socialists would seek to promote parties and policies that emphasise benefit to society just as capitalists promote parties and policies that emphasise benefit to those who invest capital. A nation state that presents a pure capitalist economic structure would be as incompatible with "conventional liberal democracy" as one that presents a purely socialist structure.
The short answer which I hope will lead to meaningful discussion is this: market failure.
Wherever there is - or likely to be - market failure, the state should step in (in part or whole). Why? Because by doing so, the result is an increase in well-being as well as often wealth and sometimes personal freedom too.
The state as a provider of last resort in cases where the free market cannot or will not provide a solution is perfectly fine by me. A social safety net, in other words.
"Democratic socialism is a political philosophy supporting political democracy within a socially owned economy."
And at the end of the first paragraph:
" As a term, democratic socialism was popularised by social democrats and other socialists who were opposed to the authoritarian socialist development in Russia and elsewhere during the 20th century."
Don't you think that in all honesty you should have quoted the whole of the first paragraph? It reads:
" Democratic socialism is a political philosophy supporting political democracy within a socially owned economy, with a particular emphasis on economic democracy, workplace democracy and workers' self-management within a market socialist economy or some form of a decentralised planned socialist economy. Democratic socialists argue that capitalism is inherently incompatible with the values of freedom, equality and solidarity and that these ideals can only be achieved through the realisation of a socialist society. Although most democratic socialists seek a gradual transition to socialism, democratic socialism can support either revolutionary or reformist politics as means to establish socialism. As a term, democratic socialism was popularised by social democrats and other socialists who were opposed to the authoritarian socialist development in Russia and elsewhere during the 20th century."
ISTM this paragraph recognises the two approaches to Democratic Socialism that I was indicating. If, however, "Democratic Socialists argue that capitalism is inherently incompatible with the value of freedom", then I find it difficult to see how Democratic Socialists can support conventional liberal democracy. On the other hand, I recognise that the contributors to these posts are socialists who are primarily democrats, whose gradualism has led them to recognise the legitimacy of capitalist-friendly governments.
No. It does NOT recognise that. You are reading that into it. You see stuff about establishing a socialist society and decide that this is all about abolishing democracy, and it doesn't actually say that.
In fairness to Kwesi, when I read "political democracy within a socially owned economy" I also interpret it as meaning that the "socially owned economy" bit isn't up for debate. Which then takes us back to the question of certain things being enshrined in the constitution - not 100% unchangeable I'll grant, but so embedded in the political fabric of the country that removing them, even with significant popular support, would be as realistically impossible as removing the right to bear arms in the USA.
In my view democracy should mean the people have the right to vote for whatever they want, with no legal limits on what that might be other than the requirement for there to be regular, free and fair elections. So to me, any legal limits on what sort of policies people are allowed to vote for are limits on democracy itself - a sort of political version of "you're free to choose any colour you like, as long as it's black".
And yes, I realise that all democracies throughout history have in practice had such restrictions on what policies can be implemented. My view is more of a platonic ideal of democracy against which all real-world forms can be judged.
A nation state that presents a pure capitalist economic structure would be as incompatible with "conventional liberal democracy" as one that presents a purely socialist structure.
A problem comes when the free market self-sabotages. For example, where it is possible to get quicker returns from investment by asset stripping a viable business than by building it up. Or where one gets greater returns by investing in a business whose business model is to drive other businesses out by undercutting them and then exploit the ensuing effective monopoly.
Classical economists regarded it as the government's job to set up the parameters of the market so that counter economic behaviour was disincentivised. That is, the market is something whose parameters are set by society.
Another difference of approach is over the question whether the features of middle-sized dry goods in which the market deals well are the typical case or a special case.
The short answer which I hope will lead to meaningful discussion is this: market failure.
Wherever there is - or likely to be - market failure, the state should step in (in part or whole). Why? Because by doing so, the result is an increase in well-being as well as often wealth and sometimes personal freedom too.
AFZ
If you mean that the presumption is that the market should provide and that government has the right to step in only where there is imminent market failure (in the technical economic sense) and only as far as necessary in order to correct that failure, then that sounds like a good principle that I could maybe sign up to.
But I suspect you don't quite mean that...
A market that doesn't value your labour as highly as you'd like it to isn't market failure. A market price that bears no relation to moral value isn't market failure. A market that responds to demand rather than "need" isn't market failure.
In my view democracy should mean the people have the right to vote for whatever they want, with no legal limits on what that might be other than the requirement for there to be regular, free and fair elections.
In such a world, nobody has any rights that cannot be taken away by popular vote. So if they vote in favour of crucifying Bill Gates, then that's what happens.
Classical economists regarded it as the government's job to set up the parameters of the market so that counter economic behaviour was disincentivised. That is, the market is something whose parameters are set by society.
Absolutely. I don't have a problem with there being parameters, just as long as future governments are free to change them if that's what the electorate wants.
In such a world, nobody has any rights that cannot be taken away by popular vote. So if they vote in favour of crucifying Bill Gates, then that's what happens.
Yes.
This is making an idol of the ballot box.
No, the idol (if that's what you want to call it) is the will of the people as expressed through the ballot box.
AlanCresswell:. A "conventional liberal democracy" (at least as we know it in western Europe) has a mix of socialist, capitalist, feudalism and other forms of economic and social policies in regular flux at the borders of these as political power shifts between parties with different emphases. Of course, socialists would seek to promote parties and policies that emphasise benefit to society just as capitalists promote parties and policies that emphasise benefit to those who invest capital. A nation state that presents a pure capitalist economic structure would be as incompatible with "conventional liberal democracy" as one that presents a purely socialist structure.
I agree with all of this, and would be prepared to admit its more unpleasant features, too, though not to condone them. What I like about the above contribution is that it defines democracy in terms of what democracies are rather than some ideal construct: the sort of thing you may not know what it is, but sure as hell know when you haven't got it.
The friction between democracy and socialism arises from the inherent conflict between means and ends, especially when the ends are utopian. A democratic socialist at some point has to make a choice between the relative claims of the two principles, as must any political idealist. To pretend otherwise is dangerous sentimentality. Personally, I doubt whether there is a democratic route to socialism, but I won't live long enough to be proved mistaken. That is not to say there is no need for parties advocating greater economic equality within democratic societies even if their basic premises are flawed. Come to think of it, what attracts me to democracy is that it accepts the flawed nature of humans and is ever sceptical of the societies they construct.
Personally, I doubt whether there is a democratic route to socialism, but I won't live long enough to be proved mistaken.
I actually and pessimistically agree with you.
Except this won't be the socialists' fault. We've seen, very recently, what happens on both sides of the Atlantic as to what happens when a democratic socialist comes close to power. The whole panoply of the capitalist class is brought to bear to stop them. In Corbyn's case, he was fatally undermined not just by the right-wing press, but by the nominally centrist and centre-left press too, and by groupings in his own party, terrified of his very narrow loss in the previous election. In Sanders' case, thwarted by the Democratic party machinery that couldn't countenance his popularity.
We're in a position where we're only allowed to vote for the status quo. It's killing us and destroying the planet, but no alternatives are permitted. But sure, it's still the socialists' fault.
Well said, Doc Tor. We are stuck in a right wing place, with no apparent escape. OK, there are exceptions, but in the main in economics, politics, media, it is huis clos, no exit. Well, the young will always protest, e.g., BLM, feminism, but their voices are strangled.
We're in a position where we're only allowed to vote for the status quo.
The major Parties are wedded to the status quo, but there's nothing preventing new Parties being created to promote and seek alternatives. And if there's enough popular support for them they'll be able to grow in power and either win elections themselves or lead the existing Parties to move in their direction in order to keep power for themselves.
The most recent example of this happening is the rise of UKIP, which has resulted in the Tories moving further to the right and becoming anti-EU in order to retain their share of the electorate.
I think the real democratic challenge facing socialism is simply that there's relatively little demand for it amongst the electorate as a whole. But that doesn't in any way mean there's no democratic route to socialism - that route is, and always has been, to convince enough people of its merits for it to win an election.
In Sanders' case, thwarted by the Democratic party machinery that couldn't countenance his popularity.
Oh, nuts. If there’s one thing Sanders didn’t suffer from, it was too much popularity. And if the “whole panoply of the capitalist class” were really calling all the shots, I hardly think they’d have chosen the current administration’s policies.
We're in a position where we're only allowed to vote for the status quo.
I think the real democratic challenge facing socialism is simply that there's relatively little demand for it amongst the electorate as a whole. But that doesn't in any way mean there's no democratic route to socialism - that route is, and always has been, to convince enough people of its merits for it to win an election.
Yes, on one hand. But it's disingenuous of you to ignore the problems of an overwhelmingly hostile press. Corbyn in a Russian hat in front of the Kremlin on Newsnight?
He almost squeaked the last but one election by doing the stump meetings. But we've seen that we're not allowed socialism - that's abundantly clear. We've learned our lesson and many of probably won't bother voting again, especially the young.
We are stuck in a right wing place, with no apparent escape.
I would say that's primarily because we're in a very individualistic society/culture, and without an overriding collective identity socialism - which is in my mind inherently collectivist - cannot thrive. To the extent that collective identities/groups/tribes are a thing in the UK they are at a far smaller level than national, and most of them are wont to dislike and distrust the others rather than seek to work with them for the common good.
But it's disingenuous of you to ignore the problems of an overwhelmingly hostile press.
In the age of social media? The established press have never been less relevant. Who the hell reads newspapers any more?
Cambridge Analytica didn't influence elections by putting adverts in the papers or hoping for good coverage of press conferences, they went out there and used social media to directly target individuals who were likely to be susceptible to the message they were trying to spread. What's stopping anyone else from doing the same?
We're in a position where we're only allowed to vote for the status quo.
I think the real democratic challenge facing socialism is simply that there's relatively little demand for it amongst the electorate as a whole. But that doesn't in any way mean there's no democratic route to socialism - that route is, and always has been, to convince enough people of its merits for it to win an election.
Yes, on one hand. But it's disingenuous of you to ignore the problems of an overwhelmingly hostile press. Corbyn in a Russian hat in front of the Kremlin on Newsnight?
He almost squeaked the last but one election by doing the stump meetings. But we've seen that we're not allowed socialism - that's abundantly clear. We've learned our lesson and many of probably won't bother voting again, especially the young.
Yes, I will probably vote for Khan in London, but national elections are like a wet fart.
In Sanders' case, thwarted by the Democratic party machinery that couldn't countenance his popularity.
Oh, nuts. If there’s one thing Sanders didn’t suffer from, it was too much popularity. And if the “whole panoply of the capitalist class” were really calling all the shots, I hardly think they’d have chosen the current administration’s policies.
You mean the trillion dollar stimulus which will end up in the pockets of the rich? Lol.
Marvin the Martian. But that doesn't in any way mean there's no democratic route to socialism - that route is, and always has been, to convince enough people of its merits for it to win an election.
In Sanders' case, thwarted by the Democratic party machinery that couldn't countenance his popularity.
Oh, nuts. If there’s one thing Sanders didn’t suffer from, it was too much popularity. And if the “whole panoply of the capitalist class” were really calling all the shots, I hardly think they’d have chosen the current administration’s policies.
You mean the trillion dollar stimulus which will end up in the pockets of the rich? Lol.
And what is Sanders’ position on this terrible betrayal of the working class? Please point me to his fiery denunciation.
Here, on the other hand, is Sanders saying that it’s “the most impactful bill for working families in decades” and “the truth is, this is legislation for working people, not for the rich, not for wealthy campaign contributors.”
AIUI a lot of what Sanders is arguing for in the article Doc Tor linked to is actually in the stimulus proposals as they've come from Biden and his team. On the other hand I believe there is room for a lot of amendments between the proposals and getting them passed. It's possible that Doc Tor is right and the centrist elements of the Democrats will water it down, though if so that will be the centrist Democrats. Boden may be asking for double what he wants in the hope of getting half of what he asked for, though even that helps move the Overton window to the left. Anyway, Sanders is at least as much advocating for the proposals as they stand as for even more radical proposals.
By the look of things Biden has decided that campaigning as a centrist and then governing to appease the hard right has worked well for the Republicans and he's going to try the mirror image. Even if not he thinks he's better off selling himself that way.
Biden isn't a centrist, unless your Overton window is slammed up against the right-hand stop.
Biden is a centre-right patrician leading a right-leaning party. Sanders is advocating actual socialist policies that the Democrats would never vote through.
Sanders is advocating actual socialist policies that the Democrats would never vote through.
They’d vote them through at the drop of a hat if they thought it would help them win the next election.
These recent posts seem to be suggesting that the current rightward lean of politics in the US and UK is primarily because the parties are refusing to let the public have socialist policies to vote for. Whereas it’s far more likely that they’re sensing which way the wind of popular opinion is blowing and trimming their sails accordingly.
But surely the point of statesmanship is to put forward policies you think are right, and then try to convince folk the policies would be helpful. Rather than trying to guess what people currently think and then convince them you agree with them, regardless of what you actually think.
That hardly seems fair, Doc Tor - here you're preparing to tell Marvin why he's wrong (no matter what he says, apparently!) and I'm still waiting for you to explain why Bernie Sanders is pushing Biden's effort to shovel vast sums of money into the pockets of the rich.
I don't know the details of the US stimulus package, but the nature of the economic system is that much of it will end up in the pockets of the rich. Without first restructuring the entire economic system of the US that's going to be inevitable. There will be wealthy people who have had a cut in income but who are doing OK dipping into savings - for them any cash from the government is likely to just go back into savings. There will be a lot of others who have lost income and have had to skip payments on rent or utilities, or spending they've put off because they don't have the money ... that spending will rapidly work it's way into the pockets of their landlord, utility company or whichever business they spend that money on. That money will float upwards to the pockets of the already rich quite quickly, because that's how money in a capitalist society flows.
But money has its favourites and yours went back to them
So you modelled in a studio in Greek Street for the rent - Al Stewart, Old Compton Street Blues.
Although I'm not sure someone who started collecting fine wine simply for something to do with his money is in a position to complain about money having its favourites.
But surely the point of statesmanship is to put forward policies you think are right, and then try to convince folk the policies would be helpful. Rather than trying to guess what people currently think and then convince them you agree with them, regardless of what you actually think.
I'm describing what is, not what should be.
The problem for UK socialists over the last few decades is that they have singularly failed to convince folk that the policies they think are right would be helpful. Labour have reacted to that by shifting themselves rightwards in order to cling to the possibility of winning elections rather than staying true to their original ideals and staying in perpetual opposition (or worse). I can't say I blame them for that.
There seems to be an underlying belief amongst some on this thread that there's a massive groundswell of popular support for socialism that's just waiting to be released if only the evil media, politicians and rich people would allow it. Maybe that's an easier thing to believe than socialism just not being very popular right now.
I don't know the details of the US stimulus package,
Maybe that explains why you can’t seem to tell the difference between it and Trump’s tax cuts.
but the nature of the economic system is that much of it will end up in the pockets of the rich. Without first restructuring the entire economic system of the US that's going to be inevitable. There will be wealthy people who have had a cut in income but who are doing OK dipping into savings - for them any cash from the government is likely to just go back into savings. There will be a lot of others who have lost income and have had to skip payments on rent or utilities, or spending they've put off because they don't have the money ... that spending will rapidly work it's way into the pockets of their landlord, utility company or whichever business they spend that money on. That money will float upwards to the pockets of the already rich quite quickly, because that's how money in a capitalist society flows.
This is fucking ridiculous. Bernie Sanders did not run on a platform of overthrowing capitalism.
I never mentioned tax cuts. From the little I've seen the stimulus package includes $1400 payments to everyone (reduced above a threshold income) and an extension to a boost to unemployment benefits that had previously been agreed. That is, part of the programme includes giving money directly to people (I'm a bit shaky on the details of who would qualify for unemployment benefit or what thresholds are applied to the $1400). Those payments will lead to money in the pockets of the wealthy, through the sort of mechanisms I outlined, because no one has overthrown capitalism in the US (or, even proposed doing so - at least, not leading members of the two big parties).
Payments like that are exactly what they claim to be, a package to stimulate the economy by pumping money back into it to get people spending. It's not a socialist response to the pandemic induced economic slump, it's something that fits within mainstream economic theory (which is generally antagonistic towards socialism).
You didn't have to. If you think any government spending program can be said to "end up in the pockets of the rich" then you can't tell the difference.
From the little I've seen the stimulus package includes $1400 payments to everyone (reduced above a threshold income) and an extension to a boost to unemployment benefits that had previously been agreed. That is, part of the programme includes giving money directly to people (I'm a bit shaky on the details of who would qualify for unemployment benefit or what thresholds are applied to the $1400).
Here's a tip - the people who qualify for unemployment benefits are unemployed. It's kind of in the name. (And rich people aren't filing for a few hundred dollars a month.)
And if you don't know what the limits are on the $1400 payments, why don't you find out? If it's at all important in determining whether a plan will just "end up in the pockets of the rich."
Those payments will lead to money in the pockets of the wealthy, through the sort of mechanisms I outlined, because no one has overthrown capitalism in the US (or, even proposed doing so - at least, not leading members of the two big parties).
Payments like that are exactly what they claim to be, a package to stimulate the economy by pumping money back into it to get people spending.
The American Rescue Plan is a disaster relief plan, not a stimulus plan. The goal isn't to "get people spending" it's to get aid to those who need it.
It's not a socialist response to the pandemic induced economic slump, it's something that fits within mainstream economic theory (which is generally antagonistic towards socialism).
Well no shit. This whole tangent started with Doc Tor claiming that Sanders lost because Democrats couldn't handle his fantastic socialist popularity and that Biden's plan was just putting money in the pockets of rich people. But Sanders didn't run on a platform of overthrowing capitalism, and he enthusiastically supports Biden's ARP.
Having you join in and opine that any government spending short of a socialist revolution is really just giving money to rich people is kind of irrelevant to the question. By your argument, practically everything you do is also just giving money to rich people, unless you're in the habit of cashing your paycheck and lighting pound notes on fire.
Having you join in and opine that any government spending short of a socialist revolution is really just giving money to rich people is kind of irrelevant to the question. By your argument, practically everything you do is also just giving money to rich people, unless you're in the habit of cashing your paycheck and lighting pound notes on fire.
Strictly speaking I suspect that destroying money would infinitesimally increase the value of the remaining money, which effectively does put money into the hands of rich people. [/pedant]
Alan Cresswell: It's not a socialist response.......... it's something that fits within mainstream economic theory (which is generally antagonistic towards socialism).
Maybe so, but the response has been distinctly Keynesian, which most people on the centre left and, indeed, the centre right would recognise as appropriate, if not progressive. Do we need a socialist economic solution if Keynesian economics does the trick? What socialist model would you consider superior? For most non-ideologues socialist economies don't seem to work very well, unless China counts as one, though the collateral damage doesn't seem worth it.
Here's a tip - the people who qualify for unemployment benefits are unemployed. It's kind of in the name.
Oh if only life were so simple. Governments have an odd tendency to define 'unemployed' in a narrower way than people who don't have a job.
I don't think Alan Cresswell is arguing anything so simplistic as that the payout is going directly to rich people. Rather that it will largely be spent on things - rent, highly processed food - that profit the already wealthy. So a more relevant counterargument would be to point to the tax rises for the wealthy that are also part of the package as it stands.
Here's a tip - the people who qualify for unemployment benefits are unemployed. It's kind of in the name.
Oh if only life were so simple. Governments have an odd tendency to define 'unemployed' in a narrower way than people who don't have a job.
Unless it also includes lots of rich people, there's really no point in raising it, is there.
I don't think Alan Cresswell is arguing anything so simplistic as that the payout is going directly to rich people. Rather that it will largely be spent on things - rent, highly processed food - that profit the already wealthy. So a more relevant counterargument would be to point to the tax rises for the wealthy that are also part of the package as it stands.
Yes, I know what he's saying. Everything profits the already wealthy, in that view. But it's a fucking stupid thing to say in the context of a discussion of whether Biden's ARP is sufficiently left-wing for the likes of Bernie Sanders.
There seems to be an underlying belief amongst some on this thread that there's a massive groundswell of popular support for socialism that's just waiting to be released if only the evil media, politicians and rich people would allow it. Maybe that's an easier thing to believe than socialism just not being very popular right now.
A few years ago, I read a book called Sex, Lies and the Ballot Box, about voting patterns in the UK. There was one chapter that stood out for me. (I read this a few years ago, so I apologise if I have remembered wrongly.)
It described two surveys which were conducted on voters in England, Wales and Scotland, polling them on various centre-left policies.
In the first survey, voters were asked "what do you think of Policy X?" In all three countries, a generally positive view was held, on average, of these centre-left policies.
In the second survey, voters were asked about the same policies, with the difference that the question was phrased "What do you think about the left-wing policy of X?" Enthusiasm plummeted in England, but went right up in Scotland (not sure about Wales).
I think a major part of the issue is that "being left-wing" and labelling oneself as left-wing has an image problem for a lot of people in England.
A few years ago, I went on a march for the NHS in London and got handed a leaflet from a socialist organisation, which involved the words "The NHS is a great example of socialism in action..." I don't disagree exactly, but it might be counter-productive: some people are going to look at that, and think "I'm not a socialist, therefore this is something I don't support." It might be a better tactic to point out that the NHS is something that people from all over the political spectrum can be in favour of, even if you don't agree on specifics.
Comments
Two questions:
1) Why these ?
2) given a willingness to include aero engines in the list of things that are provided by the state if the circumstances where it seems appropriate to do so should arise, is there within socialist thinking any limit on what the state should do ? Any right to own things and to trade things which the government cannot set aside if it wishes to ? Any safeguard against a slide into the government owning/controlling everything ?
The long answer is quite complicated and definitely worthy of debate.
The short answer which I hope will lead to meaningful discussion is this: market failure.
Wherever there is - or likely to be - market failure, the state should step in (in part or whole). Why? Because by doing so, the result is an increase in well-being as well as often wealth and sometimes personal freedom too.
AFZ
No. It does NOT recognise that. You are reading that into it. You see stuff about establishing a socialist society and decide that this is all about abolishing democracy, and it doesn't actually say that.
EDIT: And quite frankly, your continued insistence that somehow there's a version of democratic socialism that involves abolishing democracy is just bizarre.
The state as a provider of last resort in cases where the free market cannot or will not provide a solution is perfectly fine by me. A social safety net, in other words.
In fairness to Kwesi, when I read "political democracy within a socially owned economy" I also interpret it as meaning that the "socially owned economy" bit isn't up for debate. Which then takes us back to the question of certain things being enshrined in the constitution - not 100% unchangeable I'll grant, but so embedded in the political fabric of the country that removing them, even with significant popular support, would be as realistically impossible as removing the right to bear arms in the USA.
In my view democracy should mean the people have the right to vote for whatever they want, with no legal limits on what that might be other than the requirement for there to be regular, free and fair elections. So to me, any legal limits on what sort of policies people are allowed to vote for are limits on democracy itself - a sort of political version of "you're free to choose any colour you like, as long as it's black".
And yes, I realise that all democracies throughout history have in practice had such restrictions on what policies can be implemented. My view is more of a platonic ideal of democracy against which all real-world forms can be judged.
No argument from me on that score.
Classical economists regarded it as the government's job to set up the parameters of the market so that counter economic behaviour was disincentivised. That is, the market is something whose parameters are set by society.
Another difference of approach is over the question whether the features of middle-sized dry goods in which the market deals well are the typical case or a special case.
If you mean that the presumption is that the market should provide and that government has the right to step in only where there is imminent market failure (in the technical economic sense) and only as far as necessary in order to correct that failure, then that sounds like a good principle that I could maybe sign up to.
But I suspect you don't quite mean that...
A market that doesn't value your labour as highly as you'd like it to isn't market failure. A market price that bears no relation to moral value isn't market failure. A market that responds to demand rather than "need" isn't market failure.
In such a world, nobody has any rights that cannot be taken away by popular vote. So if they vote in favour of crucifying Bill Gates, then that's what happens.
This is making an idol of the ballot box.
Absolutely. I don't have a problem with there being parameters, just as long as future governments are free to change them if that's what the electorate wants.
Yes.
No, the idol (if that's what you want to call it) is the will of the people as expressed through the ballot box.
I agree with all of this, and would be prepared to admit its more unpleasant features, too, though not to condone them. What I like about the above contribution is that it defines democracy in terms of what democracies are rather than some ideal construct: the sort of thing you may not know what it is, but sure as hell know when you haven't got it.
The friction between democracy and socialism arises from the inherent conflict between means and ends, especially when the ends are utopian. A democratic socialist at some point has to make a choice between the relative claims of the two principles, as must any political idealist. To pretend otherwise is dangerous sentimentality. Personally, I doubt whether there is a democratic route to socialism, but I won't live long enough to be proved mistaken. That is not to say there is no need for parties advocating greater economic equality within democratic societies even if their basic premises are flawed. Come to think of it, what attracts me to democracy is that it accepts the flawed nature of humans and is ever sceptical of the societies they construct.
I actually and pessimistically agree with you.
Except this won't be the socialists' fault. We've seen, very recently, what happens on both sides of the Atlantic as to what happens when a democratic socialist comes close to power. The whole panoply of the capitalist class is brought to bear to stop them. In Corbyn's case, he was fatally undermined not just by the right-wing press, but by the nominally centrist and centre-left press too, and by groupings in his own party, terrified of his very narrow loss in the previous election. In Sanders' case, thwarted by the Democratic party machinery that couldn't countenance his popularity.
We're in a position where we're only allowed to vote for the status quo. It's killing us and destroying the planet, but no alternatives are permitted. But sure, it's still the socialists' fault.
The major Parties are wedded to the status quo, but there's nothing preventing new Parties being created to promote and seek alternatives. And if there's enough popular support for them they'll be able to grow in power and either win elections themselves or lead the existing Parties to move in their direction in order to keep power for themselves.
The most recent example of this happening is the rise of UKIP, which has resulted in the Tories moving further to the right and becoming anti-EU in order to retain their share of the electorate.
I think the real democratic challenge facing socialism is simply that there's relatively little demand for it amongst the electorate as a whole. But that doesn't in any way mean there's no democratic route to socialism - that route is, and always has been, to convince enough people of its merits for it to win an election.
Yes, on one hand. But it's disingenuous of you to ignore the problems of an overwhelmingly hostile press. Corbyn in a Russian hat in front of the Kremlin on Newsnight?
He almost squeaked the last but one election by doing the stump meetings. But we've seen that we're not allowed socialism - that's abundantly clear. We've learned our lesson and many of probably won't bother voting again, especially the young.
I would say that's primarily because we're in a very individualistic society/culture, and without an overriding collective identity socialism - which is in my mind inherently collectivist - cannot thrive. To the extent that collective identities/groups/tribes are a thing in the UK they are at a far smaller level than national, and most of them are wont to dislike and distrust the others rather than seek to work with them for the common good.
I'm not aware that he even came close being the first choice of 50% of the Democratic Party, never mind of the USA as a whole.
In the age of social media? The established press have never been less relevant. Who the hell reads newspapers any more?
Cambridge Analytica didn't influence elections by putting adverts in the papers or hoping for good coverage of press conferences, they went out there and used social media to directly target individuals who were likely to be susceptible to the message they were trying to spread. What's stopping anyone else from doing the same?
Yes, I will probably vote for Khan in London, but national elections are like a wet fart.
You mean the trillion dollar stimulus which will end up in the pockets of the rich? Lol.
And, crucially, the elections after that.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/mar/29/rich-poor-gap-wealth-inequality-bernie-sanders
Here, on the other hand, is Sanders saying that it’s “the most impactful bill for working families in decades” and “the truth is, this is legislation for working people, not for the rich, not for wealthy campaign contributors.”
By the look of things Biden has decided that campaigning as a centrist and then governing to appease the hard right has worked well for the Republicans and he's going to try the mirror image. Even if not he thinks he's better off selling himself that way.
Biden is a centre-right patrician leading a right-leaning party. Sanders is advocating actual socialist policies that the Democrats would never vote through.
They’d vote them through at the drop of a hat if they thought it would help them win the next election.
These recent posts seem to be suggesting that the current rightward lean of politics in the US and UK is primarily because the parties are refusing to let the public have socialist policies to vote for. Whereas it’s far more likely that they’re sensing which way the wind of popular opinion is blowing and trimming their sails accordingly.
Money is what will help them win the next election. Money is always what helps parties win the next election, but that's doubly true in the States.
Tell me where the money is coming from, and I'll tell you why you're wrong.
So you modelled in a studio in Greek Street for the rent - Al Stewart, Old Compton Street Blues.
Although I'm not sure someone who started collecting fine wine simply for something to do with his money is in a position to complain about money having its favourites.
I'm describing what is, not what should be.
The problem for UK socialists over the last few decades is that they have singularly failed to convince folk that the policies they think are right would be helpful. Labour have reacted to that by shifting themselves rightwards in order to cling to the possibility of winning elections rather than staying true to their original ideals and staying in perpetual opposition (or worse). I can't say I blame them for that.
There seems to be an underlying belief amongst some on this thread that there's a massive groundswell of popular support for socialism that's just waiting to be released if only the evil media, politicians and rich people would allow it. Maybe that's an easier thing to believe than socialism just not being very popular right now.
Payments like that are exactly what they claim to be, a package to stimulate the economy by pumping money back into it to get people spending. It's not a socialist response to the pandemic induced economic slump, it's something that fits within mainstream economic theory (which is generally antagonistic towards socialism).
And if you don't know what the limits are on the $1400 payments, why don't you find out? If it's at all important in determining whether a plan will just "end up in the pockets of the rich." The American Rescue Plan is a disaster relief plan, not a stimulus plan. The goal isn't to "get people spending" it's to get aid to those who need it. Well no shit. This whole tangent started with Doc Tor claiming that Sanders lost because Democrats couldn't handle his fantastic socialist popularity and that Biden's plan was just putting money in the pockets of rich people. But Sanders didn't run on a platform of overthrowing capitalism, and he enthusiastically supports Biden's ARP.
Having you join in and opine that any government spending short of a socialist revolution is really just giving money to rich people is kind of irrelevant to the question. By your argument, practically everything you do is also just giving money to rich people, unless you're in the habit of cashing your paycheck and lighting pound notes on fire.
Strictly speaking I suspect that destroying money would infinitesimally increase the value of the remaining money, which effectively does put money into the hands of rich people. [/pedant]
Maybe so, but the response has been distinctly Keynesian, which most people on the centre left and, indeed, the centre right would recognise as appropriate, if not progressive. Do we need a socialist economic solution if Keynesian economics does the trick? What socialist model would you consider superior? For most non-ideologues socialist economies don't seem to work very well, unless China counts as one, though the collateral damage doesn't seem worth it.
Of course we do. It's the nation of shopkeepers where every man's home is his castle.
Sarcasm in one so young!
God bless you
I don't think Alan Cresswell is arguing anything so simplistic as that the payout is going directly to rich people. Rather that it will largely be spent on things - rent, highly processed food - that profit the already wealthy. So a more relevant counterargument would be to point to the tax rises for the wealthy that are also part of the package as it stands.
A few years ago, I read a book called Sex, Lies and the Ballot Box, about voting patterns in the UK. There was one chapter that stood out for me. (I read this a few years ago, so I apologise if I have remembered wrongly.)
It described two surveys which were conducted on voters in England, Wales and Scotland, polling them on various centre-left policies.
In the first survey, voters were asked "what do you think of Policy X?" In all three countries, a generally positive view was held, on average, of these centre-left policies.
In the second survey, voters were asked about the same policies, with the difference that the question was phrased "What do you think about the left-wing policy of X?" Enthusiasm plummeted in England, but went right up in Scotland (not sure about Wales).
I think a major part of the issue is that "being left-wing" and labelling oneself as left-wing has an image problem for a lot of people in England.
A few years ago, I went on a march for the NHS in London and got handed a leaflet from a socialist organisation, which involved the words "The NHS is a great example of socialism in action..." I don't disagree exactly, but it might be counter-productive: some people are going to look at that, and think "I'm not a socialist, therefore this is something I don't support." It might be a better tactic to point out that the NHS is something that people from all over the political spectrum can be in favour of, even if you don't agree on specifics.