Posted on 04/03/2002 8:35:24 AM PST by George Frm Br00klyn Park
ECO - LOGIC
ON - LINE
The Great Debate...
Socialism versus Capitalism
David Wojick dwojick@climatechangedebate.org
Richard S. Courtney richardscourtney@aol.com
Editor's note: This is David Wojick's concluding summary in the trans-Atlantic debate on Socialism vs. Capitalism. We wish to thank David and Richard for their thoughtful and informative articles.
Why Americans dislike Socialism -
My summary of the discussion with Richard Courtney.
By David Wojick
This five month debate with Richard Courtney has been rather a thrilling ride for me. It began with a mutual admission of ignorance - Richard did not understand why Americans dislike socialism, and I did not understand socialism well enough to tell him. For me at least, that has all changed.
As a student of the logic of complex issues I believe, ironically, that all important concepts are ultimately quite simple. If a concept seems difficult it is usually because of the great conceptual distance between what one knows and believes, and the essence of the concept in question. So it has been here for my concept of socialism. Going in, I thought the issue was mostly about how we take care of those who cannot take care of themselves. That turned out to be a relatively insignificant part of the concept of socialism.
Socialism is basically the democratic equivalent of absolute monarchy. That sounds like a contradiction in terms, which is why I did not immediately grasp it, but it is not. The socialist government has, by divine or moral right, all the power it needs to achieve its end. This end is the realization of the socialist principle - "from each according to one's ability and to each according to one's need."
The American system is, in principle if not always in practice, the very opposite of the socialist approach to human happiness. Government action is bounded and checked, and is in every case to be resorted to only in the last resort. The rights in the Bill of Rights are all simply limits to government authority, not the basic human rights. The difference between the American system and the socialist system is as simple and stark as anything can be -- government as subordinate versus government as monarch.
The American system was born in a rejection of absolute monarchy, and the rejection continues even when the monarch is a democracy. Nothing has changed.
Perhaps my biggest problem with the concept of socialism is actually practical, not one of principle. I don't think government is capable of performing the socialist function. A modern government is a vast web of committees. Such systems are at bottom not very smart. Not nearly as smart as an average human being anyway. As such they are incapable of managing society in the way called for by the socialist principle. As fine a principle as that may be in the moral abstract, it can't be done by government. Unfortunately, Richard and I did not get to this issue.
I want to thank Richard Courtney for all the time, and clearly hard work he put into this debate. Neither of us were getting paid, so it was truly a labor of love. Reasonable people of good will can disagree over fundamental issues. Richard fits that bill and I hope I do too. Many thanks also to Henry Lamb for making all this possible.
THIS Article at ECO - LOGIC WITH links to the whole of the debate that spanned five months.
Sovereignty International
Visit our site for tons of information about the United Nations, and its influence on domestic policy
Copyright (C) 2002 Freedom.org, All rights reserved
Socialism is basically the democratic equivalent of absolute monarchy. That sounds like a contradiction in terms, which is why I did not immediately grasp it, but it is not. The socialist government has, by divine or moral right, all the power it needs to achieve its end.All, This IS the essense of socialism. Government with limitless power. No matter what entitie{s} hold that power. And, I would add to, or include in, the "by divine or moral right", "Brute Force". For, it is, in the end, ONLY force, or the threat thereof, which WILL prevail. "We" are NOT ALL kind and gentle people just yet, as much as dreamers might wish it so. Socialism, whether called "Communism", "The Republic", or "Democracy", is ALWAYS rule of the many by the few with ALL the POWER. Committee and Komitat are the same. And the knowledge of either, when compared to the knowledge of the whole of the world, is miniscule at best.
A return to Limited government is the ONLY hope of freedom for the U.S. of A. and indeed the whole of the world itself. Peace and love, George.
BUMP
We already had this debate.
We called it 'Russia'.
For starters, Capitalism has given the USA an unemployment rate of around 5% while most of Europe enjoys an unemployment rate double that and sometimes higher like in France.
The reason, he says, is simple -- it's because the U.S. has always had more religious and ethnic minorities than Europe. In Europe, generous social programs have been popular among the people because almost everyone who benefits from them is German, French, British, etc. In the United States, there has always been a stigma attached to social programs because it was always assumed (correctly or incorrectly) that "someone else" (i.e., blacks, Hispanics, etc.) was the major beneficiary.
The evidence in support of this view is likely to develop over time, and in the U.S. you can already see it. Over the last ten years the biggest push against government social spending has involved programs (AFDC, food stamps, etc.) that supported minorities disproportionately, while the the biggest push in favor of government social spending involved programs (Social Security, Medicare, prescription drug benefits, etc.) that primarily support white retirees. Europeans will lose interest in socialism once it becomes clear that the more recent immigrants from Africa and the Middle East are the main beneficiaries.
The author's statements about America's dislike of monarchs is nonsense -- Most retirees would probably support King George III or even Osama bin Laden if they thought these men offered the best chance of preserving their pensions, medical care, etc.
The difference between the American system and the socialist system is as simple and stark as anything can be -- government as subordinate versus government as monarchCR, Sorry, But I haven't copied any of the debates. I have only read the first few, and got from them the same old discussion about the former{?} U.S.S.R. that was socialist rather than the accepted "communism", and the U.S. of A. which was free interprise rather than "capitalist". I've read the last two, and IMHO, this is the only one that finally hit the "heart" of the whole discussion. Or, as I've heard before, "Lex Rex!" The LAW is king. And, with law that limits government, and holds all below that law equally, none can rule to their whims. I can hardly afford to pay attention, let alone "dues". Peace and love, George.
The percentages, as a basis of comparison, are significant; but more closely examined they show the socialist model in an even worse light.
I think we'll be catching up to the Old World soon , though: we have this "feed me" generation coming up......
I guess in Europe they have plenty of the career unemployed. I saw a poll a couple of years ago which said that 25% of young Gernmans wanted to get government jobs when they got out of school. Can you imagine 1 in 4 aspiring to be a lazy government bureaurat?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.