Re: socialism historical?
In a message dated 6/18/03 2:03:39 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: >But does not the practice of the subordination of the individual to the >collective go back to ancient times, indeed to pre-historical tribal >practice and belief? >Fred Foldvar in the ancient world we clearly have a good deal of subordination of the individual to the strongest individual or to the priest-king (the strongest individual?) but I'm not so clear about subordination of the individual to the collective. It became an article of faith in the 19th-century that pre-historic humans practiced primitive communism, but I'm not sure there's much evidence to support that faith. We do know that when Americans came to some of the pacific islands that theory said should be practicing primitive communism that they actually had a complex system of private property, and that Americans imposed primitive communism on them to force them into the "right stage of history." David
Re: socialism historical?
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > You seem to confuse the concept of subordinating the individual to > a greater human collective to subordinating the individual to the will of > the tyrant. But does not the practice of the subordination of the individual to the collective go back to ancient times, indeed to pre-historical tribal practice and belief? Fred Foldvary = [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: socialism historical?
"Socialism" is a historical term whose use has evolved over time. I believe it first appeared in an Owenite periodical, the London Cooperative Journal, in 1829 or 1830. The beginning of the classical socialist movement was the Ricardian socialist movement. They were inspired by two arguments of Ricardo's: 1) that the equilibrium value of commodities approximated producer prices when those commodities were in elastic supply, and that these producer prices corresponded to the embodied labor (including past labor embodied in capital); and 2) that profit, interest and rent were deductions from this exchange-value. From these doctrines, the Ricardian socialists deduced that profit, interest and rent derived from the exploitation of labor. The term "Ricardian socialist" applied most directly to English writers like Hodgskin, Thompson, Grey and Bray; but the same deductions from Ricardo occured to Proudhon, Rodbertus, Marx, and Warren before the middle of the century. "Socialism" is not by any means necessarily statist. The market-oriented Ricardian socialist Thomas Hodgskin, and the American individualist anarchist Tucker (who resembled each other closely in many ways), believed that the free market was the best route to socialism. They both viewed profit, interest and rent, not as natural outgrowths of a free market, but as the products of state-enforced privilege IN VIOLATION OF the free market. The central defining features of socialism, as Tucker defined them in "State Socialism and Anarchism," are: 1) The belief that all exchange value is created by labor; and 2) that "labor is entitled to all it creates." Tucker believed that this latter end could be best achieved by removing statist privileges like banking market entry barriers, legal tender laws, and enforcement of land ownership not based on occupancy and use. The resulting free market in land and credit would reduce the return on these "factors" to the labor value of providing credit and the labor value of improvements on land (plus economic rent, of course). I recently found a relevant statement on the issue by the Marxist Maurice Dobb, in his introduction to Marx's "Toward a Critique of Political Economy." As Dobb rightly pointed out, the orthodox Marxist doctrine is that surplus value was a necessary outgrowth of wage labor, even in the freest of free markets. Even in such a laissez-faire environment, the difference between the value of labor-power and the value of labor's product would result from the inherent nature of wage labor. Profits would result, Marx said, even if all products were sold at exactly their values (i.e., the LTV describes how the market works now, not the ideal for a future utopia). His whole doctrine depended on the assumption that exploitation would result even in a free market, where all commodities were sold at value. As Marx said: "If you cannot explain profit on this assumption [without bringing in state coercion], you cannot explain it at all." Dobb continues: "The point of this can the better be appreciated if it is remembered that the school of writers to whom the name of Ricardian Socialists has been given (such as Thomas Hodgskin, William Thompson and John Bray), who can be said to have held a 'primitive' theory of exploitation, explained profit on capital as the product of superior bargaining power, lack of competition and 'unequal exchanges between Capital and Labour' (this bearing analogy with Eugen Duhring's 'force theory' which was castigated by Engels). This was the kind of explanation that Marx was avoiding rather than seeking. It did *not* make exploitation *consistent* with the law of value and market competition, but explained it by departures from, or imperfections in, the latter. To it there was an easy answer from the liberal economists and free traders: namely, 'join with us in demanding *really* free trade and then there can be no "unequal exchanges" and exploitation.'" In fact, what Warren, Tucker, and market-oriented Ricardian Socialists like Hodgskin did was PRECISELY to take up this last challenge. But the way in which they did so did not please most "liberal economists." Benjamin Tucker accepted Most's charge that he was merely a "consistent Manchesterian," and adopted that label as a badge of honor. From: Fred Foldvary <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: socialism historical? Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2003 11:40:43 -0700 (PDT) --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > government money, as it predates socialism, probably doesn't rightly fall under the category of socialism. < Does the meaning of socialism include a time frame, so that a policy that is socialist after that time is not socialist before that time? What is "so
Re: socialism historical?
In a message dated 6/17/03 11:05:51 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: >On Tue, Jun 17, 2003 at 07:41:45PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >> Socialism developed in the early and mid-19th century as a rejection >of > >> classical liberalism, > >Wrong. You seem to confuse the concept of socialism with the word socialism. > >Just like classical liberalism can be traced back to chinese taoists or > >to greek stoicists, socialism can be traced back to chinese legists or >greek > >platonists. Plato's much praised "The Republic" is your typical > >national-socialist utopia. Wrong. You seem to confuse the concept of subordinating the individual to a greater human collective to subordinating the individual to the will of the tyrant. Plato's Republic represents not any typcal national socialist republic, but rather the delusion of the intellectual that he can rule as an enlightened dictator. France today with its virulent anti-American nationalism, socialized agriculture and Big Business, and government bureau of linguistic purity (all in the name of "protecting France and French culture from foreign influences) represents the typical national-socialist republic.
Re: socialism historical?
I agree that it's more effective to avoid loaded phrases like "capitalism" and "socialism." "Socialism" has become to the Right of our generation what "laissez-faire" became to the left of the 1930s--just a swear-word--and thus generates much more heat than light. I'd also avoid "private enterprise" as that became the anti-Communist political correctness of the 1950s, describing the symbiosis of Big Government and Big Business. David In a message dated 6/18/03 10:26:27 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: >> So what label would you use? >> Fabio > >I would avoid using the labels "capitalism" and "socialism". > >Substitutes for capitalism: > >1) private enterprise >2) free market; free enterprise; pure market >3) market economy >4) interventionism >5) mixed economy > >Substitutes for socialism: > >1) forced redistribution >2) command economy >3) government ownership >4) worker cooperatives; worker ownership of capital >5) forced collectivism > >Fred Foldvary
Re: socialism historical?
> So what label would you use? > Fabio I would avoid using the labels "capitalism" and "socialism". Substitutes for capitalism: 1) private enterprise 2) free market; free enterprise; pure market 3) market economy 4) interventionism 5) mixed economy Substitutes for socialism: 1) forced redistribution 2) command economy 3) government ownership 4) worker cooperatives; worker ownership of capital 5) forced collectivism Fred Foldvary = [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: socialism historical?
On Tue, Jun 17, 2003 at 07:41:45PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Socialism developed in the early and mid-19th century as a rejection of > classical liberalism, Wrong. You seem to confuse the concept of socialism with the word socialism. Just like classical liberalism can be traced back to chinese taoists or to greek stoicists, socialism can be traced back to chinese legists or greek platonists. Plato's much praised "The Republic" is your typical national-socialist utopia. So yes, the word "socialism" appeared and became popular in the early nineteenth century, some time after the word "liberalism", to denote the opposite trend in ideology. But both concepts or traditions seem to be as old as society itself. > What they all have in common, rather, is the subordination of the individual > to some sort of higher collective, whether, as in the case of communism, the > international working class, or, as in the case of national socialism, the > nation (the people of a particular ethnicity), or, as in the case of liberal > socialism, "democracy" or "the People" (a vague notion not necessarily > incorporating a particular notion of ethnicity). In practice many of these types of > socialism (of which I've listed only a few) overlapped, and we see, as I mentioned > in an earlier email, when the German Marxists allied themselves with the > monarchists to pass government-mandated "pensions" over the opposition of German > liberals. > > While most forms of socialism have been statist, not all statism has been > socialistic. The primary statist ideology prior to classical liberalism, > classical conservatism, took as its justification not the subordination of the > individual to some higher collective, but the divine right of kings to rule (one > might say subordination of the individual to God through God's alleged > representative on earth, the king). > > The post-modern left, for that matter, has to some degree moved beyond > socialism anyway. The environmentalist movement in particular has shifted from > conservation for the sake of future generations of humans to "protecting the > environment" for its own sake. Even more than socialism, environmentalism harks > back to medieval calls for subordination of the individual to a non-human higher > good. > > David -- [ François-René ÐVB Rideau | Reflection&Cybernethics | http://fare.tunes.org ] [ TUNES project for a Free Reflective Computing System | http://tunes.org ]
Re: socialism historical?
Socialism developed in the early and mid-19th century as a rejection of classical liberalism, especially but not exclusively as a German nationalistic rejection of French liberalism (or French militaristic fanatacism in the name of liberalism). Socialism actually embodies a number or loosely-related anti-liberal doctrines, most of which didn't involve abolition of private property or anything whatsoever regarding "the working class." What they all have in common, rather, is the subordination of the individual to some sort of higher collective, whether, as in the case of communism, the international working class, or, as in the case of national socialism, the nation (the people of a particular ethnicity), or, as in the case of liberal socialism, "democracy" or "the People" (a vague notion not necessarily incorporating a particular notion of ethnicity). In practice many of these types of socialism (of which I've listed only a few) overlapped, and we see, as I mentioned in an earlier email, when the German Marxists allied themselves with the monarchists to pass government-mandated "pensions" over the opposition of German liberals. While most forms of socialism have been statist, not all statism has been socialistic. The primary statist ideology prior to classical liberalism, classical conservatism, took as its justification not the subordination of the individual to some higher collective, but the divine right of kings to rule (one might say subordination of the individual to God through God's alleged representative on earth, the king). The post-modern left, for that matter, has to some degree moved beyond socialism anyway. The environmentalist movement in particular has shifted from conservation for the sake of future generations of humans to "protecting the environment" for its own sake. Even more than socialism, environmentalism harks back to medieval calls for subordination of the individual to a non-human higher good. David
Re: socialism historical?
Political labels are notoriously contextual. The passage of a few years renders many labels unintelligible. However, there is something more interesting to say. Political parties frequently co-op specific policies, which distorts our association of a label with a policy. Example: the two politial parties in the US have played football with balanced budget. Perot also made a big deal about. So what label would you use? Fabio On Tue, 17 Jun 2003, Fred Foldvary wrote: > --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > government money, as it predates socialism, probably doesn't rightly > fall under the category of socialism. < > > Does the meaning of socialism include a time frame, so that a policy that > is socialist after that time is not socialist before that time? > > What is "socialism," what year does it take effect, and why is the time > element involved? > > Fred Foldvary > > > = > [EMAIL PROTECTED] >
socialism historical?
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > government money, as it predates socialism, probably doesn't rightly fall under the category of socialism. < Does the meaning of socialism include a time frame, so that a policy that is socialist after that time is not socialist before that time? What is "socialism," what year does it take effect, and why is the time element involved? Fred Foldvary = [EMAIL PROTECTED]
