Imo, the best proponent of liberal socialism is Andre Gorz.

Social democrats should take off the national blinkers that mean they see the working class of their country as their constituency and workers from other places as not so, or even a threat, despite their needs.

Really? Christ. Well, I guess that spells the end of the national health service. After all, if we’re not to discriminate between workers depending on their nationality why should we give medical care to people from Basildon but not Lower Shebelle? The construction of the IHS might be a tough process but apparently it’s a necessary. And I guess we should start taking the police off the streets of Enfield and send them to Venezuala. After all, if there’s no distinction to be made between English workers and others why should they waste time in comparatively peaceful London rather than aiding violent Caracas?

To be less obnoxiously sarcastic (sorry about that) – what, in practice, does it mean to “take off national blinkers” and “view workers as equal”?

I’m not sure how people can be perceived as equals because they share the same material needs, by the way. Get Irish, Chinese and Saudi Arabian grocers together over drinks and ask them to write up a coherent political programme and you’re liable to find them, three hours later, among smashed glass, broken chairs and a blank sheet of paper.

As far as I’m concerned freedom is the principal socialist value. Equality is just the necessary means to achieve that.

Thanks – you raise some thought provoking questions. I think a lot of important issues hinge on getting the right balance between, to put it crudely ‘left and ‘liberal’ versions of freedom.

I like these sort of abstract, philosophical pieces, though I’m not entirely sure what the author is getting at.

My view is that the unifying left or liberal principle is that society should be organised around the idea of letting individual people be the author of their own lives; that is, we think the highest good is allowing people to choose and satisfy their own preferences as much and as equally as possible.

From this perspective (of equal freedom for all individuals to satisfy their autonomous desires), the idea that there could be legitimate collective interests and actions seems a bit contradictory. To an autonomous individual, collectives are arbitrary and constrictive: if they have rights, those rights must come at my expense.

This shows, I think, how problematic it can be when you take something that is reasonable in a particular context and turn it into a universal absolute, from which all other principles and rules can be derived. There’s no a priori reason to think that we should be able to re-engineer society along a set of lines congruent with our chosen absolute, nor any reason to think that people would want to live there if we could. People are social animals. They need to live socially. This necessarily implies that the principle of equal freedom for individuals can’t carry the day in every aspect of life.

There can be no justice in a society where your life chances and conditions of existence are determined solely and exclusively, whatever the myths that surround social mobility or the American Dream, by chance of birth (who to and where). A just society will be an equal one. Of course those fortunate enough to have been born with the old silver spoon will put every obstacle in the way of a just society even obstacles that appear not to be obsacles but attempts at creating a more just society such as trickling down a few crumbs from the imperialist table to create `social mobility’ for a priveleged layer of the unlucky class. But really justice demands socialism: redistributions of wealth, full employment, socialisation of productive capacity. Only in a just society can individual thrive. Everything else is an illusion.

This discussion reminds me of something I wrote recently about the compatibility of statism and individualism. A distinction was then drawn in the comments between seeing individualism as something which related to personal fulfillment and individualism in a more right wing, libertarian sense – relating more to self reliance. I focused on the possible tension between ‘left’ and ‘liberal’ freedom when I first read the post. But does a third kind of freedom needed to be added into the equation – the freedom which right wing libertarians value?

Chris said “As far as I’m concerned freedom is the principal socialist value. Equality is just the necessary means to achieve that.”

Or as Rousseau put it “no one citizen should be rich enough to buy another, and no one so poor as to be obliged to sell himself.”

Sarah,

I look at it like this: today, more or less everyone is a liberal. Libertarians are descended from our original left-wingers, the classical liberals. They too agree that society can be organised rationally according to liberal principles, but they place the emphasis on slightly different things. In general, right-liberals emphasise the “freedom” in “equal freedom” and left-liberals emphasise the “equal”.

5

Individualism and collectivism are contradictions and so too are socialism and liberalism, but with liberal socialist models, the two can exist side-by-side. -

Most of us live in different spheres, so that when we are working or travelling on a train, we are constrained by social conventions and laws. When we are at home, we are more able to throw off social constraints (but not all laws), we can become ‘free’ within the same constraints of the most liberal of societies. This is how liberalism and socialism can work, social goods, including work is distributed (not redistributed) and so too is time, which will be more enabling for individuals to persue their interests than those currently employed in full-time jobs.

As we are posting on a blog, the above is probably over-simplifying the position, but, hopefully, it gives you an idea of how two contradictory ideologies can, concretely, exist side by side.

Many thanks for great comments.

steveb – Agree about Gorz. I got some of the non-work ideas from him. Marcuse is another good liberal socialist theorist. Agree with your later post on free time.

bensix – all people are human whatever borders they were born in. I think we should not just worry about those in our own borders when others outside them may be more needy. That doesn’t need to imply the specific things you are suggesting. It means things like being open to migration and increasing aid. And I agree about different groups disagreeing if they have different interests. I think we should think about all people regardless of nation but I agree that doesn’t mean getting all people together in one forum is the way to do it because of clashing interests.

Chris/Sarah – freedom first and equality the route to that, and getting the balance right, I agree. Ditto Vimothy on these collective/individual tensions. David, agree on equality as the basis for freedom.

Vimothy, I guess I was saying various things but a key thing was the left should be open to migration and non-work.

Thanks!

Luke,

Then let me ask two questions:

If people don’t organise their lives around work, what do they organise them around?

If people are more open to migration, then this will come at the cost of common experience, cohesion, values and so on–in other words, solidarity. How do we balance this against possible economic gains that might arise from removing restrictions in the labour market?

Libertarian and Marxist socialists believe in self-determination and many social democrats like equality and collectivism because they can be the basis for liberty.

I’m sorry, but as far as I can see the Marxist claim to self-determination consists of one single sentence about freedom (“the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all.”) in the Communist Manifesto: the same bible which advocates State control of the media and transportation, thus granting the State a veto on free speech and free association.

Marxism is s dogmatic, centralising and authoritarian philosophy. Did you blink and miss the Soviet Union, China, North Korea, etc? They’re not ‘corruptions’ or ‘deviations’ from Marxist dogma, they are the true expressions of a philosophy in which subjects are displaced from the process of history.

Libertarian socialism is largely defined by its distance from Marx and his disciples.

Vimothy, I’m not saying there should not be work, I want to have paid work, and I know it’s important for structure, esteem etc. i am just saying we should all work less, redistribute working time so the unemployed can work more, and the employed can have have more autonomous time to do things which are not imposed. So a shorter working week and a basic income scheme could help with this. Andre Gorz has written on this this and Robert Skidelsky has also written on this very recently on the online Social Europe Journal and in other online places in the last few days/weeks.

Solidarity under open migration. Most societies are in flux over years and decades and solidarity gets redefined. The UK has redefined itself over its whole history as the composition of its population has changed because of migration. But we should also think about solidarity beyond our shores, and migrants and their children who are welcomed and get new opportunities are very solidaristic with their new home. All people are humans, beyond the UK, most are much more needy, we need to work out ways of having solidarity with them. I agree it’s a challenge but we need to do it.

shatterface – Marxism is about collective ownership and control of the economy and politics.That is collective self-determination in which individuals recover determination over their lives as part of that. Libertarian socialism is also about collective self-determination in a non-statist way. I agree with your scepticism about the Marxist state but also think we need a state to regulate and redistribute so I’d favour as much autonomy as possible in a libertarian socialist sense with states to redistribute across that. I agree it’s a difficult balance but we have to try to do it.

cheers!

Luke

> i am just saying we should all work less

Well of course over-work causing ill-health is a bad thing.

But that aside, psychologists would argue that work is a good and healthy thing and helps meet a number of vital human needs.

So I don’t agree with you that less work would be a better society .

David Ellis

> There can be no justice in a society where your life chances and conditions of existence are determined solely and exclusively,… by chance of birth (who to and where).

But when the UK, and the West in general is on the whole way, way better on this issue than the rest of the world – especially regarding women’s outcomes – the question ought to be: is it good use of our/your time to tweak an extra % out of the UK (hard to mke a good thing better) – or to look overseas where there are big problems (more scope to make bigger improvements, theoretically.

Just Visiting, I agree, I am not saying those in work should stop working. They should keep it up, just less hours. Then just some of their work time can be redistributed so those out of work have work. So the idea is the employed work less so the unemployed do have more work which as you say is desirable.

15

The fact is, new technology has created less work, so we now have a society where there are some who work up to 60hours per week and who do not have time to enjoy the fruits of their work. At the same time, there are those who are unemployed and have all the time but are unable to enjoy their leisure because of lack of funds. They also lack the psychological benefits which you mention that work brings. By distributing work, it gives all individuals (obviously not severly disabled people) a chance to be more rounded. It takes away the obvious stigma of unemployment and those who work will not feel indignation that their tax is spent on keeping people idle.

Imo, there are good economic, psychological and environmental arguments for liberal socialisn.

Luke,

Thanks for taking the time to explain that to me.

I have no quarrel with the idea that some people might like to work less in principle, though I do worry that in this country our progressive politics is often weird and overly technocratic. Life should be meaningful, but as modern people we have a tendency to understand that meaning in strictly rational and materialistic terms. I suppose it makes me a little bit suspicious of schemes to try to reorganise work.

On the issue of solidarity I suspect our disagreements are a little bit more fundamental. I think that what you say (i.e. that we should be open to migration) follows logically from basic liberal principles, if we assume that the rational reorganisation of society around a few basic principles is a worthy goal.

In terms of its impact on community and commonality, I think it’s clear that immigration has a negative impact. You can see that simply from the fact that many people don’t like the idea. There are plenty of other good reasons to expect this outcome, though, so it shouldn’t come as a great surprise. Common understandings, shared values, shared experiences, culture and loyalties are all required to build social solidarity.

If we take groups of people who don’t share any of these things and create a situation in which they all live side-by-side, there is nothing to bind them together as a community. So what results is not a community, but rather, something under which community is breaking apart. Instead, the only principles left that can order society are rational-technocratic and market based. We get something that makes sense in terms of liberalism (as I have defined it), but is soulless and lacks those intangible things that make the good life possible.

Do you not think the left should concentrate on cutting out the middle man of politics and money in general? Someone posted me recently the pic “If you have food in your fridge, clothes on your back, a roof over your head and a place to sleep you are richer than 75% of the world.” and it goes on. The left should concentrate on uniting the 75 percent across borders and taking over.

Good article, and I agree with most of it. I’m not sure about things like this, though:

“But the left have something distinctive to say about freedom.

Many people lack liberty because they don’t have resources like income, wealth or education. This is a consequence of inequality or because too much is left to the market. Through redistribution and collective provision the left can be better at delivering positive freedom. ”

To me, that basically means “the left can say something special about freedom because it’s possible to describe socialism in terms of freedom”. Well, true. But that’s getting off the point, isn’t it? You seem to be blurring the social side of the political scale into the economic one. They interact, obviously, but I think that the left can have interesting talks about the former with just equivocating it with the other.

So where do we stand on the conflicts RE leftism and freedom? Not only in terms of which side of the scale you use when you call yourself “leftist”, but in terms of arguments among otherwise similar leftists as to people’s rights to be prostitutes, play violent video games, refuse to marry gay couples in their churches? That’s where I see the most left-on-left rows over the idea of freedom, myself.

Vimothy, take your point about community, it’s an important one. I guess: a) I think community can be too strong if it excludes outsiders, hostility to others is one of the dangers of community; b) we need to extend our community beyond our national boundaries and recognise we have responsibilities to others often more needy than us; c) within national boundaries communities change and evolve, look at the way the class structure and cultural make-up of the UK has changed in the last 40-50 years and the basis of community evolves and changes, it’s not a fixed thing; d) diversity is compatible with community, it does not need to have homogeneity. These are quick answers to what I know is an important and complex issue.

Guevara – You are right that the left is divided on these social liberal issues as they are about liberal-conservative divisions as much as left-right ones. This is one of the points I guess that concerns me, that the left should be socially liberal on such issues. I am also saying that the left should be liberal on non-work and migration which are not specifically left issues directly.

Dave bones and steveb – I like what you say!

Nice one Luke, you say it better than me

b) we need to extend our community beyond our national boundaries and recognise we have responsibilities to others often more needy than us;

the thing is I can say it but I really don’t have any idea about how to do it, or if it might just happen of its own accord. I think one of the main reasons the left is like a corpse on a life support machine in this country is because we are very comfortable. I’m not saying that things need to be shit to make a revolutionary situation nor am I anything but really lucky that I am comfortable, but I can see that to more or less forget about “the left” as a concept in this country and try to give the emerging world a voice I think weight of numbers could take hold in a Tahrir square sort of way. I am not struck on mad theories but I thought the thrive project film had some interesting ideas about power in the hands of people.

Voluntary forms of socialism are compatible with liberty, but as soon as it is imposed on people, then it is no longer compatible with liberty.

I think one of the old socialist arguments, was that people could not be free so long as they lacked some basic amenities, such as education, healthcare, economic security etc. And the only way that those things could be provided for everyone was through collective provision.

Conversely, the left has generally been in favour of removing the state from regulating people’s personal lives (as opposed to much of the right).

One area where I think the left has lost the plot badly in recent years is on civil liberties (no mention of it here I note). The last Labour government probably has the most appalling record on that front of any in living memory!

Here are some quotes from the Labour Party’s 1945 general election manifesto. It makes quite a major contrast to anything you’d hear from today’s Labour Party…..

http://www.politicsresources.net/area/uk/man/lab45.htm

The Labour Party stands for freedom – for freedom of worship, freedom of speech, freedom of the Press. The Labour Party will see to it that we keep and enlarge these freedoms, and that we enjoy again the personal civil liberties we have, of our own free will, sacrificed to win the war. The freedom of the Trade Unions, denied by the Trade Disputes and Trade Unions Act, 1927, must also be restored. But there are certain so-called freedoms that Labour will not tolerate: freedom to exploit other people; freedom to pay poor wages and to push up prices for selfish profit; freedom to deprive the people of the means of living full, happy, healthy lives.

They say, “Full employment. Yes! If we can get it without interfering too much with private industry.” We say, “Full employment in any case, and if we need to keep 8 firm public hand on industry in order to get jobs for all, very well. No more dole queues, in order to let the Czars of Big Business remain kings in their own castles. The price of so-called ‘economic freedom’ for the few is too high if it is bought at the cost of idleness and misery for millions.”

I think that is a good reflection of the (real) left’s view of freedom!

25

Unfortunately, The Labour Party are no longer a socialist party but I agree with the rest of your post.

24

I don’t want to sound too philosophical, but all environments are imposed upon us, we have no choice about where we are born. I say this because I doubt that any form of socialism would totally satisfy a libertarian.

@ 26 Graham,

yeah, I think you are right. It shows that the Labour Party was opposed to freedom, except in the very limited sense, that they wouldn’t nationalise the press and they’d leave the church alone. Otherwise it was full steam ahead, with the intention of leaving in place all the ‘temporary measures’ from the war.

@ 27 Steveb,

“I doubt that any form of socialism would totally satisfy a libertarian.”

As I say, as long as it’s voluntary. If people want to set up a cooperative, or live in a commune, that’s their business.

Dave, good points, don’t know that film, will check it out.

Trooper, agree about being imposed – but at the same time I think voluntary bottom up stuff needs to be matched with redistribution and co-operation across/between voluntary communities which I think means some kind of state. Btw on your comment (28) on Graham I think he shows an old Labour commitment to freedom not the opposite.

Graham, totally agree and love the 45 manifesto quote. Brilliant!

Steveb – agree, yet again!

@ 29 Luke,

“I think he shows an old Labour commitment to freedom not the opposite. ”

I know most round here will not agree with my position, but I think one can at least recognise, as an objective point, that the definition of freedom given by the Labour Party in that statement is radically different from what an old-school liberal would have said. Under full socialism, freedom is impossible. How can you, for instance, have a free press, when the press is controlled by the state? If the press is left alone, what about if the paper and ink it needs for production are under state control? Etc. Etc.

Socialism was and is in opposition to liberalism, and the hardcore of the Labour Party saw WWII as a war to destroy capitalism.

@28. Trooper Thompson

I don’t recall there being any assault on press freedom or civil liberties by the ’45 Labour government. In fact quite the opposite. Most of the press (like today) was fiercely hostile to the Labour Government. And the civil liberties which had been suspended for the duration of the war were restored.

There weren’t any paranoid idiots then telling us that we had to give the authorities more and more draconian powers to “protect” us like there are today!

In those days the Labour Party respected civil liberties. And they weren’t afraid to put the well-being of the majority ahead of the interests of big business!

Perhaps today’s Labour party could learn a thing or two from their forebears!

@ 31

“I don’t recall there being any assault on press freedom”

I wasn’t alive, so cannot recall. My point was that full socialism would include taking control of the press which would extinguish liberty. They didn’t do this.

“civil liberties which had been suspended for the duration of the war were restored. ”

In fact ID cards were kept in place for another 7 years until the courts threw them out, and rationing stayed as well, as well as a whole host of restrictions.

“And they weren’t afraid to put the well-being of the majority ahead of the interests of big business! ”

This is class war rhetoric, which has little connection to economic truth. The well-being of the majority would have been far better served by allowing capitalism to function rather than by implementing socialistic measures.

32

Sorry TT, you are constucting your own idea of socialism and then shooting-it down, we know that the USSR and China have restricted press freedom just as Nazi Germany did in the past. But what Luke is talking about is liberal socialism, and you have to be open-minded enough to believe that most socialists are not harking back to the conditions which prevailed in above mentioned states or in war-time Britain.

I do agree that socialistic polices implemented within a capitalist society tend to serve the interests of big business, and we will have to disagree about the possible outcome of laissez-faire capitalism. LIberal socialism does not want to return to the conditions of the post-war settlement, we both agree that, in the final analysis, it didn’t serve the interests of the many.

“freedom is also important and connected to left values.” – Then why do you support a government system that has been the most successful at destroying freedom?

“Marxist socialists believe in self-determination” – How did that work out for you? Are you serious? I thought you were a professor. Marxist has systematically destroyed society and either imprisoned or starved millions.

“But the left have something distinctive to say about freedom.” – Yes, but actions speak loader than words and their actions have been to reduce the individuals freedom through higher taxation, increased regulation and red tape, and restrictive laws.

“Many people lack liberty because they don’t have resources like income, wealth or education.” – So you acknowledge the problem. The government could start by taxing them less, then they would have more to spend on freedoms and education.

“Through redistribution and collective provision the left can be better at delivering positive freedom.” – Rubbish, history has shown us time, and time, and time again that there is not better alternative to the prosperity of a country than the free market. The “collective” ideas of production and society have led to famine and authoritarian rule in China, Russia, North Korea, some African states, some South American states. Its simple, the policies don’t work. I find this argument astonishing. Which planet are you actually living on? Again…professor?

“The left see work as a way of improving the well-being of the working class and have long been concerned about fairness and control in the workplace.” – Work’s a bi**h isn’t it?!?! The simple fact is less work, less productivity, less money. Read Adam Smith on how the only representation of money is labour. End.

“Redistribution of working time would mean that the employed can work less and have more free time and the unemployed can have work.” – This is a GCSE level error. I thought you supported freedom? Isn’t working a freedom? who are you to say that a person can’t work more? Or do you only a agree with a little freedom, and then it must be boxed up. Not only this but you clearly miss the concept that one unit of labour is not a necessarily a substitute for another unit. Please tell us all what happened in China when they thought this in the 1950′s with the steel production….

“But the liberty of humans to move and improve their life chances is frowned upon, often on dubious empirical grounds about its effects.” – Really? where you getting this from. I don’t come from a cushy background. Havn’t once has someone frown at the concept of me wanting better for myself, and yes I have moved between countries.

“Marxists are internationalists and view workers as equal whatever nation they come from.” – Ya except under your system some are more equal than others…arn’t they. Where we going to find these angels to run the place.

“Social democrats should take off the national blinkers that mean they see the working class of their country as their constituency and workers from other places as not so, or even a threat, despite their needs.” – What?

“But the left should believe in liberty alongside its traditional values like equality.” -
Dear me. Liberty isn’t a traditional value…is this how things are in your world? liberty is a new idea?

“distinctively of the left and underpin positive freedom” – eight words that don’t say anything. “Positive freedom”, nice sound bite but it doesn’t mean anything.

Uni of Sussex you say….oh dear.

@ 34 Freeman

“Rubbish, history has shown us time, and time, and time again that there is not better alternative to the prosperity of a country than the free market. The “collective” ideas of production and society have led to famine and authoritarian rule in China, Russia, North Korea, some African states, some South American states. Its simple, the policies don’t work. I find this argument astonishing. Which planet are you actually living on? ”

I imagine Luke lives on a planet where the possible political systems aren’t limited to a) free-market libertarianism and b) totalitarian communism. Y’know, this planet, the one where we all live with the apparent exception of yourself.

Also, it would probably be helpful to stop pretending that “freedom” refers solely to laissez-faire economic freedom. Your rant against the left’s “record” on freedom ignores both social policies and the fact that people can have their freedom harmed by private interests as well as governments. A lot of that red tape you’re complaining about is there to prevent far greater abuses of the poor by the rich; as for taxation as anti-liberty, freedom to starve in the street isn’t really freedom at all. So this goes back to the fact that there are more than two options available.

@Trooper Thompson

I wasn’t alive, so cannot recall. My point was that full socialism would include taking control of the press which would extinguish liberty. They didn’t do this.

It’s easy enough to verify by reading a history book. And thank you for dealing with your own imaginary construct of what you think ‘socialism’ is rather than an actual historic documented case. You do know the difference between democratic socialism and totalitarian comunism right?

“civil liberties which had been suspended for the duration of the war were restored. ”
In fact ID cards were kept in place for another 7 years until the courts threw them out, and rationing stayed as well, as well as a whole host of restrictions.

In the context of a country where shortages were endemic and was nearly broke after fighting a total war, ending rationing was not very feesible. You are correct about id cards, but that was the exception. There was no move to end free elections, or place restrictions on the freedom of the press, or to create a secret police force etc.

“And they weren’t afraid to put the well-being of the majority ahead of the interests of big business! ”
This is class war rhetoric, which has little connection to economic truth. The well-being of the majority would have been far better served by allowing capitalism to function rather than by implementing socialistic measures.

Actually the postwar govt produced near full employment. And industrial production returned to prewar levels by 1948. They tried “allowing capitalism to function” after the end of WWI and it led to a runaway inflationary boom and then a bust, followed by a decade of stagnation.

shatterface – Marxism is about collective ownership and control of the economy and politics. That is collective self-determination in which individuals recover determination over their lives as part of that

No, that’s socialism, of which Marxism is just one, authoritarian form. I know Marxists like to pretend they have a monopoly on socialism but it predates The Great Prophet Marx (pbuh) by a long way.

Libertarian socialism is also about collective self-determination in a non-statist way. I agree with your scepticism about the Marxist state but also think we need a state to regulate and redistribute so I’d favour as much autonomy as possible in a libertarian socialist sense with states to redistribute across that. I agree it’s a difficult balance but we have to try to do it.

As long as you define socialism as a top down process the State will accumulate power and the workers will be no less alienated than under capitalism. Even if that State is entirely democratic, having 50,000,000 bosses won’t grant you any more freedom of self-determination than having one.

You will only have freedom if you and your fellow employees own your own means of production. Syndicalism allows you self-determination free of exploitation by either capitalism or the State.

34

You are confusing marxism with historical events carried-out in the name of marxism, just like the Branch Davidians, who proposed that their way of life was based on christianity, we all know that it was not the case.

You are also confusing socialist inspired policies operating within a capitalist society (high taxes and all) with socialism – capitalism and socialism are two quite different economic systems.

‘Liberty is a new idea’, no it is not, it is much older than socialism.

I would suggest that before you start throwing ad hominem attacks you need to get your knowledge base up to speed.

36. Graham

” In the context of a country where shortages were endemic and was nearly broke after fighting a total war, ending rationing was not very feesible. ”

Maybe ending rationing was not feasible where there were shortages of a particular commodity. However, the Labour government introduced their own completely unnecessary rationing of bread to play international politics. They used the stomachs of the British people as pawns to leverage loans from the Americans. Post-WW2 austerity was a deliberate choice by the Labour government.

http://howitreallywas.typepad.com/how_it_really_was/bread_rationing/

39

There is a massive leap from suggesting that bread rationing was unnecessary to post WW2 austerity was a deliberate choice of a Labour government.

@Chaise the planet I live on is this one. The reason it is is that I choose not to become bogged down in issues of semantics, and pretend that this sh*t is somehow different because we have put it in a different wrapper. People who suggest that the concept of Marxism can succeed are living on Mars. The concept is in theory a good one, but that’s all it is good for, a theory. Everytime Marxism, or severe economic control has been put on an economy it has led to some of the foulest conditions on earth. You can re brand it all you want. It is still the same authoritarian rule, where power is seized for the political elite, and opportunity is crushed. Say what you want about a free market, but it has never lead to the desperate plight of millions like Marxism has.

@34

The government could start by taxing them less, then they would have more to spend on freedoms

I’m not entirely sure a society where freedom must be bought is all that worthwhile, frankly.

41

Marxism has never existed in any state, if we look at the USSR as one example, the conditions in 1917 were dire, and this was nothing to do with socialism. Attempting to impose anything like marxism in that environment was bound to failure. But, of course, it has been pointed-out that there are different models of socialism and the original post is suggesting liberal socialism. If you want to debate, address or critique what has been offered, not what you (wrongly) believe is being suggested.

Thanks Steve and Graham, answering the points better than I could! cheers.

@ 43. steveb

No. The closest ideal to Marxism is actually China under Mao, especially in the 50′s. It is also a load of nonsense to sit there and blame the ‘conditions’ on the failure of Marxism. It has always failed, no matter the conditions.

I find it beyond astonishing that anyone defends an economic and social system that has killed so many people.

‘@ 40. steveb

It was a deliberate policy choice of the Labour government. They were specifically trying to suppress consumption in order to reduce imports to support the sterling exchange rate. That was where the austerity was coming from. Moreover, the 1951 Gaitskell budget that split the Labour Party was because it was an austerity budget made necessary by Britain spending so much participating in the Korean war.

45

There has never been a marxist state, China or otherwise, but it’s totally irrelevant because what is being suggested by the OP is not marxist socialism.

And what is astonishing is the notion that you believe that socialists are looking to replicate the conditions of China or the USSR, why would anyone want to give up the freedoms which we now enjoy, including debating openly on an internet site?

46
But that isn’t what you stated Richard, in all fairness, the post-war was a chaotic period, both at home and abroad, not least because the costs had depleted our gold reserves and we needed to borrow so much from the USA. Remember, it wasn’t the Labour Party who took us to war

@ Graham,

“thank you for dealing with your own imaginary construct of what you think ‘socialism’ is rather than an actual historic documented case.”

How about, for once, you, a socialist, presumably, give a clear, concise definition of what the bloody word means (to you). My definition is based on the economic system of state ownership (collective ownership, if you prefer) and central planning, and I can find you historical documentary back-up.

Whenever socialism is discussed, it’s the same thing; a chorus of “that’s not socialism” whenever an objection is raised.

“They tried “allowing capitalism to function” after the end of WWI and it led to a runaway inflationary boom and then a bust, followed by a decade of stagnation.”

It’s a little more complicated than that, and your general overview is wrong, I’m afraid. There was no return to laissez-faire – in fact there never really has been. The monetary system didn’t get sorted out after the war, for a number of reasons, such as the matter of huge debts incurred during the war and what to do about them, a failure to cut back government expenditure, the political impossibility (due to union power) of allowing the necessary deflation following Sterling’s return to gold, the idiot Americans putting in place massive tariffs which prevented all the countries who owed them from paying them with goods, and such things.

I wish I knew more and understood more about these things, because the era we live in began with the First World War, and we are still stumbling on half-blind from that terrible event, and making the same mistakes.

@ 41 Freeman

“@Chaise the planet I live on is this one. The reason it is is that I choose not to become bogged down in issues of semantics, and pretend that this sh*t is somehow different because we have put it in a different wrapper. People who suggest that the concept of Marxism can succeed are living on Mars. The concept is in theory a good one, but that’s all it is good for, a theory. Everytime Marxism, or severe economic control has been put on an economy it has led to some of the foulest conditions on earth. You can re brand it all you want. It is still the same authoritarian rule, where power is seized for the political elite, and opportunity is crushed. Say what you want about a free market, but it has never lead to the desperate plight of millions like Marxism has.”

Tell me something. Are you actually incapable of conceiving systems other than communism and libertarianism, or do you just pretend to be incapable because it’s the only way to avoid admitting that you’re wrong?

There is a world of difference between what I assume you mean by “Marxism”, e.g. the USSR, and a state that balances market interests with some socialist ideals, e.g. the UK. Until you’re capable of understanding that socialism does not always mean Marxism, you’re living on Planet Strawman, not Earth.

@ 48 Trooper Thompson

“How about, for once, you, a socialist, presumably, give a clear, concise definition of what the bloody word means (to you). My definition is based on the economic system of state ownership (collective ownership, if you prefer) and central planning, and I can find you historical documentary back-up. ”

I’ll bite. Socialism (to me) is the idea of improving society via financial redistribution and laws designed to encourage egalitarianism (this probably isn’t definitive, it’s off the top of my head).

The mistake made by Freeman and his charming ilk is to assume that a) this means redistribution at all costs, and b) that we also think fascist dictators are super.

“Whenever socialism is discussed, it’s the same thing; a chorus of “that’s not socialism” whenever an objection is raised.”

That would probably be because people who hate socialism tend to lead with something mature like “OMG YOU LUV STALIN WAAAAAHH!”. Many people on your side are addicted to equivocating on this issue, for whatever reason, so don’t blame us when they’re called on it.

“Marxism has never existed in any state”.

Ok, let’s agree on that. However, after so many “Marxist” governments, we should also be able to agree that Marxism is dangerously incompatible with human nature.

We should also be able to agree that whilst learning from history is important, raking up the past to score points off opponents is futile.

Left-wingers are not evil because Stalin was left-wing. Neither is the modern Conservative party superior to Labour because the Soviet bloc was such a disaster.

The political good news is that the main parties are “basically the same”. This is the result of thousands of years of trial, error and human evolution. I know “basically the same” is supposed to be a criticism, but it shouldn’t be.

Okay Chaise, but I haven’t actually (on this occasion!) said that all socialists worship Stalin and I have courageously resisted the temptation of naming the Khmer Rouge as the closest thing to pure Marxism,

All I have done is use a definition of socialism which, rather than being my own ‘imaginary construct’ as Graham has it, is far closer to how Stafford Cripps, Bevan and the gang would have defined it. They weren’t just after a little bit of redistribution, they wanted to implement that clause in the Party constitution which Blair had his posturing fight over in the 1990s.

Steveb says @ 38 “capitalism and socialism are two quite different economic systems.”, which I would agree with, but this is not the same as what you’re saying. In part, this type of definitional dispute is because such arguments as these are constantly darting between theory, history, current affairs etc, but I think it’s also because left-wingers are a bit slippery on the subject

@ Jack C,

“I know “basically the same” is supposed to be a criticism, but it shouldn’t be.”

I guess you’re a ‘glass half full’ kinda guy. My only word of caution is; if we don’t constantly criticise the bastards, and point out that they are as bad as the other lot, they’re likely to get worse.

Trooper,
I’m not saying we shouldn’t criticise. “Basically the same” could mean that the parties have to differentiate on ideas, and by being building a reputation for competence.

What we’ve got is Ed Balls and George Osbourne. Yikes.

@ 52 Trooper

“Okay Chaise, but I haven’t actually (on this occasion!) said that all socialists worship Stalin and I have courageously resisted the temptation of naming the Khmer Rouge as the closest thing to pure Marxism,”

I’m not saying you did. You complained of a general trend of socialists shouting “that’s not socialism”; I’m positing a general cause of non-socialists childishly pretending that all socialism is Stalinism.

Now, if a particular socialist acts like they own the concept, then has a go at you for using the word to describe anything that slightly deviates from their own politics, then they’re wrong and you’re right. Up to a point, anyway: even with our language’s natural ambiguity it’s possible to use a word in a way that’s simply dishonest. But I have no problem with you including Marxism under your definition of “socialism” as long as you don’t then accuse moderate socialists of being Marxists.

“Steveb says @ 38 “capitalism and socialism are two quite different economic systems.”, which I would agree with, but this is not the same as what you’re saying.”

They’re different but not mutually exclusive; you can have a system that uses elements of both. Source data: pretty much every nation in the world. In my experience there are few true commies or true libertarians. Most people have at least a little of each side in their philosophy.

“In part, this type of definitional dispute is because such arguments as these are constantly darting between theory, history, current affairs etc, but I think it’s also because left-wingers are a bit slippery on the subject ”

Well, if you mean “Alice the leftist disagrees with Bob the leftist”, then that’s hardly slippery; leftists are not Borg, they are entitled to their own opinions and aren’t rendered hypocrites simply because of another leftist’s views.

If you mean “specific leftists redefine socialism to suit the argument they’re currently in”, well, that depends on the individual.

@49. Chaise Guevara

The article was about the effective rule of Marxism. I’m commenting on this article, which seems obvious to me as it is the comments section under THIS article. I can’t comment about what is going on in your head, or what your head reads into this article.

So am I talking about socialism? (as you define it), or the system in the UK (which has never been marxist, so I am not sure how your statement relates to this article), or the divide between left and right….No. I am talking about this article, and while our usual encounters on LC usually lead to you waving your hands in the air yelling about straw men when you have run out of arguments, you ignore completely the article that is being commented on…which is about Marxism. Which has never worked.

Having said that with todays breaking story about uni places, Sussex, and Chinese students, I am not surprised that their professors are supporting the idea of authoritarian states…(not that the author of this article is in anyway involved I should add)

Out of interest. Lets consider how people have voted which system is better, shall we. Lets take the example of Hong Kong and China. Completely different systems living right next to each other. Was it the Chinese that had to put up barriers to stop the Hong Kong’ese going into China? or was is the HK’ese that had to put up the barriers? People will vote with there feet, and people will go where they may make a better life for themselves.

@ 56 Freeman

“The article was about the effective rule of Marxism. I’m commenting on this article, which seems obvious to me as it is the comments section under THIS article. I can’t comment about what is going on in your head, or what your head reads into this article. ”

Nice try. But let me remind you again of part of your original post, one that I in fact quoted when I first replied to you:

“Rubbish, history has shown us time, and time, and time again that there is not better alternative to the prosperity of a country than the free market. The “collective” ideas of production and society have led to famine and authoritarian rule in China, Russia, North Korea, some African states, some South American states. Its simple, the policies don’t work. I find this argument astonishing. Which planet are you actually living on? ”

Wow, that sounds a lot like you’re splitting political theory into “free market” and “collectivism”, then condemning all of “collectivism” (which appears to mean anything that isn’t free market) based on Maoism and Stalinism, doesn’t it? And when I pointed out that not all socialism is Marxist, you said “you can rebrand it all you want”. Someone doesn’t want to admit that non-extreme positions exist!

The article seems to drift between Marxism and the left in general. But that doesn’t change the fact that you are trying to conflate the two.

If my usual replies to you consist of me “waving my hands in the air yelling about straw men”, that’s NOT because I’ve run out of arguments, but because you in fact use a lot of straw men, so pointing out the straw man is the only argument needed.

@57. Chaise Guevara

I was using those examples to show why marxism is a load of rubbish. In any event this is turning into a matter of symantics and going no where.

The issue as I see it is much along the same lines a Hayek saw the issue. The more power and money you provide to the ruling elite, whether a small increase or large, removes power from the people to make decisions for themselves.

The tendancy of a socialist system to de-generate into a totalitarian state is too high and is a slippery slope towards the errosion of personal liberties. It has caulsed the constant flip flop between ruling parties in this country, and I think we can agree that the current system of government we have had for 30 years is perhaps no longer appropriate.

Again the example I draw is that of Hong Kong. Is Hong Kong really a straw man? Is that system really so degenerative? Wouldn’t it be nice to say that England has 3% unemployment? Why has Hong Kong developed so extensively, whilst China has lagged behind. Not just in the last 5 years, but the last 50.

@ 58 Freeman

“I was using those examples to show why marxism is a load of rubbish. In any event this is turning into a matter of symantics and going no where. ”

Fine.

“The issue as I see it is much along the same lines a Hayek saw the issue. The more power and money you provide to the ruling elite, whether a small increase or large, removes power from the people to make decisions for themselves. ”

That’s massively oversimplistic. With a weak “ruling elite”, as you put it, most people have very little power to make decisions for themselves because they’re in thrall to the wealthy. In the Victorian era you could make people work in hellish and dangerous conditions for hardly any pay, fine what little pay they got away on trumped-up charges, sack them for whatever reason you liked (e.g. because they lost an arm to your dangerous machinery), blacklist them if they complained, and justify all this by saying “If they don’t like it they can find work elsewhere”. So people chose between abuse and death. Some power.

“The tendancy of a socialist system to de-generate into a totalitarian state is too high and is a slippery slope towards the errosion of personal liberties.”

Any system has the potential to degenerate into totalitarianism. I agree that many totalitarian systems have been created by the naivity/selfishness of socialist revolutionaries. But I don’t see how that shows that socialism is the risk factor. The danger is inherent in revolutions.

So where’s the applicability? What countries have started with a strong tradition of democracy, voted under a stable system for a party that supports welfare, then slid from that to totalitarianism due to socialism rather than other causes?

Because that’s the sort of thing you need to talk about if you’re going to claim that socialism, rather than revolutions, encourage totalitarianism.

“It has caulsed the constant flip flop between ruling parties in this country, and I think we can agree that the current system of government we have had for 30 years is perhaps no longer appropriate. ”

Hang on. How has it caused the flip-flop?

“Again the example I draw is that of Hong Kong. Is Hong Kong really a straw man?”

Never said it was, did I?

“Is that system really so degenerative? Wouldn’t it be nice to say that England has 3% unemployment? Why has Hong Kong developed so extensively, whilst China has lagged behind. Not just in the last 5 years, but the last 50.”

I’m no expert, but I’m guessing the fact that China is a fascist state has something to do with it.

@Freeman and Jack C

Throughout his life, and without exception, Karl Marx argued that for socialism to be realized the state would have to be done away with. Ffs, if you want to debate about Marx, it might be a good idea if you knew just a tiny piece of information that isn’t based on myth.

Don’t take my word for it, read for yourselves, go on, I dare you.

@59. Chaise Guevara

Hong Kong has in place what is called the Sino-British joint declaration. The economic situation of Hong Kong didn’t change after the 1997 hand over, and it won’t change until 2047. There is the seperate and unfortunate situation that the declaration didn’t extend to immigration, but that is another matter.

Hong Kong has remained economically the same as John Cowperthwaite imagined. Unemployment has always been very low, and real world increases in GDP have been some of the best and most sustainable in the world. Not only in the last 15 years, but for the last 50. It is one of the few examples of a light touch free market, and it has turned the Hong Kong’ese into one of the most prosperous nations on earth.

A free market is not a strawman. It is alive and well and working effectively in the countries who adopt it. (HK’s unemployment hit a high of only 5% in the crash, and then recovered quickly). The market was able to adapt more quickly, and with the minimal tax burden they were better able to allocate capital and resources to avoid losses. The govt. also refused to prop up bad businesses. Try and get a bank bail out in HK.

It is true that many of the conditions in England during the Victorian era where terrible, but while the economy was freer than today, it was hugely manipulated by the royal elite, and aristos, a very corporatist atmosphere. A better example is that of America between about 1870 and 1915. An era that saw the general standard of living shoot up.

@60. steveb

Yes and while Marx was a philosopher, he was no economist. We are not arguing abstract theory here, but what can reasonably be implemented, and no one here is saying get rid of government all together. That is anarchy and would destroy itself.

61

‘We are not arguing abstract theory here’

That’s funny, @45 you asserted that marxism had always failed, how would you know that if it is only abstract theory?

@ 61 Freeman

“Hong Kong has in place what is called the Sino-British joint declaration. The economic situation of Hong Kong didn’t change after the 1997 hand over, and it won’t change until 2047. There is the seperate and unfortunate situation that the declaration didn’t extend to immigration, but that is another matter.

Hong Kong has remained economically the same as John Cowperthwaite imagined. Unemployment has always been very low, and real world increases in GDP have been some of the best and most sustainable in the world. Not only in the last 15 years, but for the last 50. It is one of the few examples of a light touch free market, and it has turned the Hong Kong’ese into one of the most prosperous nations on earth. ”

Like I said, I’m not expert on HK, so I’ll leave this to people who know more on the subject.

“A free market is not a strawman. It is alive and well and working effectively in the countries who adopt it. (HK’s unemployment hit a high of only 5% in the crash, and then recovered quickly). The market was able to adapt more quickly, and with the minimal tax burden they were better able to allocate capital and resources to avoid losses. The govt. also refused to prop up bad businesses. Try and get a bank bail out in HK.”

You seem to be obsessed with saying things “aren’t a strawman” when nobody’s claimed that they are. Why do you keep doing this?

Anyhoo, I’m sure that HK’s free market has contributed to some extent to its success. Does it have no socialist leanings at all? No public healthcare, welfare, education, roads, streetlights?

“It is true that many of the conditions in England during the Victorian era where terrible, but while the economy was freer than today, it was hugely manipulated by the royal elite, and aristos, a very corporatist atmosphere.”

1) Did factory owners only mistreat their workers because of a royal decree telling them to? Because if not this seems to be misdirection.
2) Was the ability of the royals and aristos to “manipulate” the market in any way connected to the amount of money they had?

“A better example is that of America between about 1870 and 1915. An era that saw the general standard of living shoot up. ”

1) “Better” is not synonymous with “less troubling for Freemen’s ideals”.
2) America at the time had loads of untapped resources to exploit and loads of immigrants arriving to bring in labour and new ideas.
3) The period was filled with abuse of the vulnerable, much of which was made easier by lack of state intervention (workers’ rights, city living conditions, racist policies, KKK lynchings). So it’s not quite as good an example as you think.