Uh, no. What you're thinking of is liberalism. Socialism is an economic structure in which the means and conditions of work are controlled by the workers, as opposed to capitalism, in which the means and conditions of work are controlled by a capitalist class of owners and bosses. The idea that capitalism means an unrestrained free market with a libertarian government while socialism means a regulated market with a big-spending government is a right-wing frame that makes it impossible to discuss politics in a way that makes any sense.
...and not just of capitalism.contrasomaNovember 20 2010, 06:40:51 UTC
"As soon as there will exist for everyone a margin of real freedom beyond the production of life, Marxism will have lived out its span; a philosophy of freedom will take its place. But we have no means, no intellectual instrument, no concrete experience which allows us to conceive of this freedom or of this philosophy." -JP Sartre
"[Sarte's statement] suggests, incidentally, one of the fundamental errors in any assimilation of Marxism to religion: whereas the religious believer desires the categories of his or her religion to be of eternal relevance, the Marxist desires nothing so much as a state of affairs in which the categories of Marxism will finally be obsolete." -Carl Freedman
Oil is still scarce, and oil is the cheapest energy around. Energy is scarce. So those put a cap on how much we can ease the scarcity of other things. I would worry a lot more about Hubbert's Peak closing off the possibility of post-scarcity futures than I would worry about population growth closing off those possibilities.
Hmmmm. I guess I'm not clear enough on the definitions. I think the government should guarantee basic rights and standards of living. I'm not opposed to having individuals earning and spending money within a legally regulated system.
I'm not sure how to get there, though. I'm sure what I have in mind is sort of not on the bargaining table as it is, as it's "radical socialist freedom-hating" or whatever already. :-P
It sounds like you're wanting to reform capitalism and make it less painful for the working class. That's liberalism. I'm not sure why people think it's socialism.
I'm sort of with wring on this one, but I haven't actually studied economics and political theory in any focused way. If you can clarify, I'd appreciate it. I thought all government aid was somewhat socialistic. And aren't there always twelve or more different theories trying to claim the same name anyway?
Comments 18
(The comment has been removed)
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
Reply
-JP Sartre
"[Sarte's statement] suggests, incidentally, one of the fundamental errors in any assimilation of Marxism to religion: whereas the religious believer desires the categories of his or her religion to be of eternal relevance, the Marxist desires nothing so much as a state of affairs in which the categories of Marxism will finally be obsolete."
-Carl Freedman
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
Reply
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
Reply
I'm not sure how to get there, though. I'm sure what I have in mind is sort of not on the bargaining table as it is, as it's "radical socialist freedom-hating" or whatever already. :-P
Reply
Reply
Reply
No. That is nothing but right-wing propaganda combined with liberals who want to think of themselves as somehow less complicit in capitalism.
Reply
Leave a comment