an economic model or a way of life?

P

purple

Guest
There is much discussion about whether socialism of capitalism is the best model for government.
What I'm not clear on is if people are referring to a model for framing social policy or a model for framing all policy.

I would regard free market capitalism as the best model for running the economy, therefore I would regard myself as a capitalist. That's as far as the philosophy encroaches into my views on the world and how it should be run, and that's where I start having a problem with socialism; for me socialism is closer to a religion than an economic model.
Socialist thinking pervades all aspects of life both economic and, well, social. When I read books on socialist thinking I was struck by how often I was told what to think, what is right and what is wrong (I am on dodgy ground here as it is years since i read this stuff and while I remember the broad strokes I can't quote author or title).
If I defined myself as a socialist I would be constrained in how I could view the world and still fit the bill as a socialist. A capitalist is a much more pragmatic creature and can support or oppose strikes,union action, privatisation or government policy on a case by case basis without the fear o being kicked out of the brotherhood.

that's just my take on it, I would be interested to hear from some of those who describe themselves as socialists to say what they actually mean by that.
 
Purple - I'm probably "a socialist" but it isn't from books (though I've read Engels, Marx, Fanon and a deal more in my time). It's from experience and the heart.

The capitalist (originally the Protestant - Max Weber!) ethic demands that the righteousness of the individual be manifested in parsimony and industry leading to surplus (in contrast to live-for-the-day consumption) which then visually represents his status in the community and carries his status - via descendents - into the future. To my mind it is essentially narcissistic. Nota Bene (just in case anyone is poised to fly to defence of "the Protestants" that I do not mean - emphatically do not mean! - Protestants are more narcissitic than any others, nor am I referring to the religious belief system but to the lifestyle accompanying it. OK? Don't shoot!)

The socialist ethic is not at all soft and fluffy though represented as a bit air-head. I very much respect the Marxist proposition "from each according to ability, to each according to need" as being a base of humanitarian respect for others. Socialism makes logical (as well as emotional!) sense to me. I remember as a very small child watching my mother scatter a mixture of cinders and salt from a bucket, all down the pathway and steps to our house and the pavement in front of it, during a cold icy snap. She had some of the mix over and scattered it over the pavement in front of the next-door neighbours. The principle of working to maintain one's own health and safety and wellbeing and then GIVING surplus to others who can't/won't do so for themselves was integral to everything I experienced........and I'm talking about a working-class very deprived housing estate in Dublin, not Maynooth seminary here!

For me the difference is whether I give the surplus of my energy and labour or "sell" it. If the latter, those who need it most are least likely to acquire it.

This is why - despite its horrors and failures and all the mess and distortion - I work for the NHS and am not a "private practitioner".

Look forward to your comments!
 
.

A socialist would be forced to de-ice the neighbour's drive.

A capitalist may choose to de-ice the neighbour's drive (and probably would get enough salary to do so).

Capitalists should be allowed to do whatever they like with their money, including give it away. They might also benefit from de-icing the neighbour's drive.
 
Well Marie, you have read a bit more on the topic than I have and I'm slow to get into discussions with people who can counter the generalised opinion I have to offer with quotes from experts and well thought out social theory but you've been nice to me in the past so...

I was really coming at this from the perspective of how the socialists and capitalists define themselves in the modern Irish context. I was not trying to open a discussion about the relative merits of either, though I did find LookAtMe's post very clever.
As for the historical view, I would consider the Dutch statelets of the low countries who embraced mercantilism most fully after their independence from the Spanish as the first capitalist state. They also happened to become the freest and most pluralistic country in the known world at the same time...but that's all history.
 
Hi Marie,

Would your mother have helped out the neighbours if they never repaid the favour? I'm not knocking her act of kindness but the whole basis of neighbourliness is that it works both ways.

Even if you clear the ice for an elderly neighbour who cannot do it for him or herself, maybe there's an expectation that somebody else will be kind to you when you're no longer fit for ice clearing duties.

My problems with socialism is that there seems to be no limit to the needs that must be met by those with abilities.
 
Extremes never work, so extreme capitalism and extreme socialism are probably as bad as each other. The answer almost certainly lies slap bang in the middle.

Using capitalism to create as much surplus as possible, and using socialism to ensure that the surplus get's divided fairly amonst the worst off.

The problem is, what constitutes the surplus? I could certainly live quite comfortably on 50,000. But if someone is willing to pay me 1,000,000 to do my job, does that mean I have a 950,000 surplus that the government can take for the less well off.

(Dear Mr Taxman, I don't earn 1,000,000)

One way of determining a fair surplus is to view that side of things from a Capitalist perspective. If taxes are too high, your highest surplus producers will shop around and go live somehwere that offers better Value for their Tax spend.
You don't want them leaving, so you drop your price to keep them spending their Tax here rather than abroad.

take this to the extreme, you let them avoid paying almost any tax, in return for them employing workers who will pay tax.

I think In Ireland we do OK on the Capitalist side of things, encouraging business, inward investment etc. But we're very poor on the Socialist side, spending the Surplus to create a better society.

-Rd
 
Very good post daltonr, I agree completely.
It seems to me that many people who consider themselves socialists regards a social conscience as the exclusive reserve of the left, if you care about your fellow man you must be a socialist. To me that's arrogant and smacks of moral superiority. If I describe myself as a capitalist I do so only in relation to how I think the economy should by run, it is not a blanket philosophy that covers all aspects of how the government should do things and so leaves room for more individual thought.
Socialism as I see it requires you to embrace a much broader philosophy. It's closer to a religion than an economic ideal.

That's my take on it anyway so I wonder if you can compare the two or is it a case of "apples and oranges" as they say?
 
.

Socialism is meant to be a compromise between Capitalism and Communism. It delivers the worst of both worlds.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top