The Thread of Democrats

[JimC]

Brian Peacock wrote:

...my personal position stands as a counter to the exploitative practices upon which capitalism relies. I would be interested to hear you thoughts on where and how firm governmental hands on domestic economic policy might benefit indentured child labours mining Cobalt in the Congo for your domestic and personal electronics for example.

Global corporations make it difficult for the actions of a progressive social democracy to influence issues beyond their borders. However, if the majority of developed countries adopted the same policies of punishing corporations who source goods and materials from exploitative regimes, some progress will be made.

Brian Peacock wrote:

With respect, what a load of nonsense. Look, I'm a constitutional republican to but I'm also committed to pacifism. I'm no more arguing for the violent overthrow of Capitalism than I am advocating stringing Prince Charles up by his lugholes. I think it's telling that challenging the liberal hegemony is so routinely and casually equated with unjustified violence.

The point is that none of your political statements allow for some form of free enterprise continuing to exist, at least if you had your druthers. You seem to imply that even the most stringent government controls over capitalism is a less that ideal solution. So, your preferred system, I assume, would have no room for capitalism whatsoever. If this is more than just a wistful fantasy, you need to have a mechanism for the end of capitalism. I think it's highly unlikely that it will wither away; it fights hard against the sorts of government regulation that social democrats and progressives wish to tame it with. So, it is perfectly reasonable for me to ask whether you think it should be replaced in some type of revolution...

Fine, you've made it clear that you are a pacifist, so violent revolution is not on your agenda. Given that, what process do you envisage that would allow a transition to a non-capitalist (and presumably socialist) society? I know one - the total collapse of civilisation world-wide. And of course, that is a real possibility, but not one to be desired...

[Brian Peacock]

...

Now, where does "left" start/stop, and how does that fit with the idea of social democracy being both centrist and also a blend of capitalism and socialism? Most particularly the left part of social democracy - what might be best called progressivism.

My personal view is that this blend of socialism and capitalism - or as I've put it, the centrist idea that capitalism can be tamed and harnessed for social goods - is what being a liberal is all about,..

It's not, really. Being liberal is not about taming capitalism. It's about allowing capital/labour/etc markets to be relatively free as possible to maybe provide those social goods. You are confusing liberalism with social democracy. They aren't synonymous.

You're clearly having trouble parsing my views here. I've suggested that free market economics tends towards exploitation and said that the liberal perspective is one in which it is considered both possible and, to some extent, obligatory to "allow capital/labour/etc markets to be relatively free as possible to maybe provide those social goods". The taming and harnessing part comes in the 'relatively free as possible' of your own clause - where the proper bounds of regulation or the extent or scope of social goods varies depending on which liberal you're talking to.

While I'd acknowledge that centrisms can be left- or right-leaning to different degrees I think the border between left and right is the border between socialism and capitalism. These are the only games in town, and they are mutually exclusive.

You are the only person that I have ever heard of as referring to all capitalism as right, and the mix of capitalism and socialism as centrist. What do you say about this and the fact that basically everyone else considers, say, the UK Labor party, as being left? I put it to you this is just empty rhetoric by you in your goal to bolster your socialist ideology.

You asked where I thought the middle ended and the left began not what everyone else supposedly thinks. I suggested why I think that socialism and capitalism are basically the only games in town - now we can call this left and right or we can call it North and South or we can call it 1 and zero, but you shouldn't confuse yourself by applying your own understanding of what 'left' and 'right' mean to you to what I'm saying. For example, if you're going to assert that it's incorrect to consider a compromising mix of free market economics and the state funding of social provision 'centrist' then explain what you think 'centrist' is and how that "mix of capitalism and socialism" can't be or isn't it.

Nonetheless, how can you have a 'mix of capitalism and socialism' if socialism denies the private ownership of the means of production and capitalism denies the means of production being exclusively owned and controlled by labour? (This is another opportunity for you to explain your views btw -). The 'mix of capitalism and socialism' you're talking about, a so-called mixed economy, is what the term liberal was invented for, where some authority--typically the state--attempts to balance capital forces and imperatives in the interest of social goods and their provision. The only sticking point here really is that you don't like it when your preferred brand of left-leaning liberalism is referred to as "liberal".

My socialism is no more an ideology than my veganism or my constitutional republicanism - these are moral convictions which form the basis of some of my ideas and inform how I choose to live my life. You, nor anyone, are under no obligation to accept or adopt them.

[Brian Peacock]

Brian Peacock wrote:

...my personal position stands as a counter to the exploitative practices upon which capitalism relies. I would be interested to hear you thoughts on where and how firm governmental hands on domestic economic policy might benefit indentured child labours mining Cobalt in the Congo for your domestic and personal electronics for example.

Global corporations make it difficult for the actions of a progressive social democracy to influence issues beyond their borders. However, if the majority of developed countries adopted the same policies of punishing corporations who source goods and materials from exploitative regimes, some progress will be made.

Those exploiting corporations are based in our half of the globe, so shouldn't our firm-handed governments be doing something about the levels of exploitation packaged for our convenience and available at knock-down prices on the high st (whether virtual or brick-and-mortar)?

Brian Peacock wrote:

With respect, what a load of nonsense. Look, I'm a constitutional republican to but I'm also committed to pacifism. I'm no more arguing for the violent overthrow of Capitalism than I am advocating stringing Prince Charles up by his lugholes. I think it's telling that challenging the liberal hegemony is so routinely and casually equated with unjustified violence.

The point is that none of your political statements allow for some form of free enterprise continuing to exist, at least if you had your druthers. You seem to imply that even the most stringent government controls over capitalism is a less that ideal solution. So, your preferred system, I assume, would have no room for capitalism whatsoever. If this is more than just a wistful fantasy, you need to have a mechanism for the end of capitalism. I think it's highly unlikely that it will wither away; it fights hard against the sorts of government regulation that social democrats and progressives wish to tame it with. So, it is perfectly reasonable for me to ask whether you think it should be replaced in some type of revolution...

Fine, you've made it clear that you are a pacifist, so violent revolution is not on your agenda. Given that, what process do you envisage that would allow a transition to a non-capitalist (and presumably socialist) society? I know one - the total collapse of civilisation world-wide. And of course, that is a real possibility, but not one to be desired...

While I'd like to see a just transition to more benign forms of social and political relations I don't have all the answers, of course. What I do see is the environmental and climate crises acting as a catalyst for political and social change, one in which the needs of people are put before the private profit of a handful of others. I think broad adoption of the citizens' assembly model in which ordinary people selected at rand are informed and educated by experts before arriving at policies with the executive then coordinate on behalf of everybody as basically a good way to start. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one, etc. We can talk about this more later - but I think the principles have to be explored before we go diving straight into demanding solutions from each other.

[pErvinalia]

I can't do this again Brian. Words have meanings, and you seem determined to be as unaccountable for your choice of words as possible. Do you do this on purpose to make it harder to rebut your rhetoric? Whatever, it's frustrating as hell.

Here's a good example.

The taming and harnessing part comes in the 'relatively free as possible' of your own clause..

Totally contradictory. It really is like debating 42. Words have a totally different meaning to you as to everyone else.

[JimC]

Brian Peacock wrote:

I think broad adoption of the citizens' assembly model in which ordinary people selected at rand are informed and educated by experts before arriving at policies with the executive then coordinate on behalf of everybody as basically a good way to start.

Sure, I know that is one of the XR platforms, and it has some promise. However, it hasn't answered the central question, which is do you think that it is possible for capitalism to actually disappear. Many aspects of it are enshrined in laws and constitutions, it covers such an enormous range, from mom and pop stores to mega corporations. It ain't going to be abolished except by force...

To me, the pragmatic choice is convincing voters in as many jurisdictions as possible to bring in progressive governments that will act firmly for social and environmental goods, with a carrot and stick message to free enterprise. The smart ones would see the benefit of being good citizens, making reasonable profits without exploitation (strong unions would have a big part here as well)

For me, one major reform that would be immensely valuable is eliminating the manipulation of the political process via the power of wealth. No more donations whatsoever to political parties, no lobbyists, no legal loopholes for tax etc. All political parties would have modest government funding, enough to make sure that their actual policies are known to the voting public, but that is all.

[pErvinalia]

Look, liberalism is underpinned by the notion that individuals interacting freely through a "free" marketplace will result in the greatest good for society. Where the market falls short, government steps in. In fact government has a limited market role in liberal political doctrine. Manage and enforce private property, contracts, rule of law and common defence. None of this is "taming" free markets*. It's providing a consistent framework allegedly free of coercion under which markets can form and function freely. This idea that liberals aim to tame markets to any significant degree is a fantasy you've invented, Brian. The people and ideology that aims to do that are social democrats. I.e. those proponents of a mixed economic system - i.e. some socialism and some capitalism. The idea that a system that incorporates socialism is liberal is just nonsensical.

* - The only thing that fits with liberalism that could be considered a "taming" of free markets is anti-trust law (i.e. heavy regulation of monopolies).

[Brian Peacock]

I can't do this again Brian. Words have meanings, and you seem determined to be as unaccountable for your choice of words as possible. Do you do this on purpose to make it harder to rebut your rhetoric? Whatever, it's frustrating as hell.

Here's a good example.

The taming and harnessing part comes in the 'relatively free as possible' of your own clause..

Totally contradictory. It really is like debating 42. Words have a totally different meaning to you as to everyone else.

Don't be silly, it simply speaks to the subjective, value-driven nature of the compromises and/or conditions, the 'mix', you brought up yourself. As for your own assert, "that it's incorrect to consider a compromising mix of free market economics and the state funding of social provision 'centrist'" etc, I would be interested in your explanation of what you think 'centrist' is and how that "mix of capitalism and socialism" can't be or isn't it.

Look, liberalism is underpinned by the notion that individuals interacting freely through a "free" marketplace will result in the greatest good for society. Where the market falls short, government steps in. In fact government has a limited market role in liberal political doctrine. Manage and enforce private property, contracts, rule of law and common defence. None of this is "taming" free markets*. It's providing a consistent framework allegedly free of coercion under which markets can form and function freely.

Again, the subjective conditions by which liberalisms operate define their individual brand, and you yourself have already said that liberal centrists like social democrats weigh in heaviliy on the side of regulation and while still adhering to the principle of "individuals interacting freely through 'free' marketplaces". This just means that social democrats, social liberals, liberals, and neoliberals differ in the application or the extent to which 'free' markets are or should be free.

... This idea that liberals aim to tame markets to any significant degree is a fantasy you've invented, Brian.

I would call it a reading of liberalism: again, with the different brands of liberalism being defined by the extent to which 'free' markets are free and the scope or extent of the social goods these economic systems supply. Also, I think the unrelenting focus on liberalism as purely an economic matter is a general mistake which limits the discussion and understanding of the wider social and personal consequences of liberalisms.

... The people and ideology that aims to do that are social democrats. I.e. those proponents of a mixed economic system - i.e. some socialism and some capitalism. The idea that a system that incorporates socialism is liberal is just nonsensical.

I don't necessarily disagree with this, but you still seem reluctant to acknowledge that some kind of 'free' market system is supported under social democracy in order to drive the social goods and provision that brand of liberalism considers important. That 'mix' as you keep calling it is essentially a socially-minded accommodation with capitalist, free-market forces and imperatives. "You can have some of your free-markets if we can have some of our social goods."

* - The only thing that fits with liberalism that could be considered a "taming" of free markets is anti-trust law (i.e. heavy regulation of monopolies).

Poppycock! Regulation in general can reasonably be considered as a 'taming' influence on capitalism which, as I've suggested, always tends towards the exploitative.

[rainbow]

Regulation in general can reasonably be considered as a 'taming' influence on capitalism which, as I've suggested, always tends towards the exploitative.

Eggzept that the regulations are made by those already in influence. Such as making the entrance of new businesses in competition to the established corporations nearly impossible.
Example: Small recycling factory not able to open up due to Environmental Impact Assessment regulations. Large Corporation buys up a Brownfields site and uses the existing permit.
Don't believe in this "Free Market" claptrap

[pErvinalia]

Correct. This is how I define neoliberalism, but it's not the widely accepted definition. It's basically crony capitalism.

[pErvinalia]

I can't do this again Brian. Words have meanings, and you seem determined to be as unaccountable for your choice of words as possible. Do you do this on purpose to make it harder to rebut your rhetoric? Whatever, it's frustrating as hell.

Here's a good example.

The taming and harnessing part comes in the 'relatively free as possible' of your own clause..

Totally contradictory. It really is like debating 42. Words have a totally different meaning to you as to everyone else.

Don't be silly, it simply speaks to the subjective, value-driven nature of the compromises and/or conditions, the 'mix', you brought up yourself.

The mix, i.e. social democracy, isn't liberalism.

As for your own assert, "that it's incorrect to consider a compromising mix of free market economics and the state funding of social provision 'centrist'" etc, I would be interested in your explanation of what you think 'centrist' is and how that "mix of capitalism and socialism" can't be or isn't it.

I've already described my view of centrism a number of times (across threads), and you've ignored that every time. I'm not doing it again.

Look, liberalism is underpinned by the notion that individuals interacting freely through a "free" marketplace will result in the greatest good for society. Where the market falls short, government steps in. In fact government has a limited market role in liberal political doctrine. Manage and enforce private property, contracts, rule of law and common defence. None of this is "taming" free markets*. It's providing a consistent framework allegedly free of coercion under which markets can form and function freely.

Again, the subjective conditions by which liberalisms operate define their individual brand, and you yourself have already said that liberal centrists like social democrats weigh in heaviliy on the side of regulation and while still adhering to the principle of "individuals interacting freely through 'free' marketplaces".

This is just shameless quotemining and outright fabrication. I would never say that social democrats are liberal centrists. Additionally, social democracy doesn't adhere to the principle of individuals interacting freely through free marketplaces. It adheres to the principle of socialising the economy through increasingly heavy regulation and forms of protectionism (for e.g. sin taxes).

... This idea that liberals aim to tame markets to any significant degree is a fantasy you've invented, Brian.

I would call it a reading of liberalism:

Provide some definition that matches this reading, not your own definitions which appear pulled from your orify.

Also, I think the unrelenting focus on liberalism as purely an economic matter is a general mistake which limits the discussion and understanding of the wider social and personal consequences of liberalisms.

It is only limited in the sense of restricting my replies to your claims about markets (i.e. economic liberalism). We probably both agree with the civil aspect of liberalism.

... The people and ideology that aims to do that are social democrats. I.e. those proponents of a mixed economic system - i.e. some socialism and some capitalism. The idea that a system that incorporates socialism is liberal is just nonsensical.

I don't necessarily disagree with this, but you still seem reluctant to acknowledge that some kind of 'free' market system is supported under social democracy in order to drive the social goods and provision that brand of liberalism considers important. That 'mix' as you keep calling it is essentially a socially-minded accommodation with capitalist, free-market forces and imperatives. "You can have some of your free-markets if we can have some of our social goods."

It just doesn't match any concept of "free" that can be reasonably defended. Saying you are not free to interact with that market however you want because the government has bigger ideas regarding that market isn't being "free". It's being restricted.

* - The only thing that fits with liberalism that could be considered a "taming" of free markets is anti-trust law (i.e. heavy regulation of monopolies).

Poppycock! Regulation in general can reasonably be considered as a 'taming' influence on capitalism which, as I've suggested, always tends towards the exploitative.

In liberalism limited regulation is harmonious with the mentioned limited role of government in providing a consistent framework in which markets can then be free. Regarding our current state of regulatory environment, our western political systems aren't really classical liberal any more. They are claimed to be neoliberal (not by my definition), but a better understanding would be a distorted marketplace due to crony capitalism. A lot of regulation would fit this model.

[pErvinalia]

Let's look at some definitions of liberalism. Particularly as it applies to "free" or "tamed" marketplaces.

Classical liberalism is a political ideology and a branch of liberalism which advocates civil liberties under the rule of law with an emphasis on economic freedom.

......

Drawing on ideas of Adam Smith, classical liberals believed that it is in the common interest that all individuals be able to secure their own economic self-interest.[12] They were critical of what would come to be the idea of the welfare state as interfering in a free market.[13] Despite Smith’s resolute recognition of the importance and value of labor and of laborers, classical liberals selectively criticized labour's group rights being pursued at the expense of individual rights[14]..

......

Classical liberals argued for what they called a minimal state, limited to the following functions:

A government to protect individual rights and to provide services that cannot be provided in a free market.
A common national defense to provide protection against foreign invaders.[17]
Laws to provide protection for citizens from wrongs committed against them by other citizens, which included protection of private property, enforcement of contracts and common law.
Building and maintaining public institutions.
Public works that included a stable currency, standard weights and measures and building and upkeep of roads, canals, harbors, railways, communications and postal services.[17]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism

Note again that the functions of government above aren't a "taming" of markets. They are a consistent framework in which markets can be as free as possible.

Economic liberalism is an economic system organized on individual lines, meaning that the greatest possible number of economic decisions are made by individuals or households rather than by collective institutions or organizations.[1] It includes a spectrum of different economic policies such as freedom of movement, but its basis is on strong support for a market economy and private property in the means of production. Although economic liberals can also be supportive of government regulation to a certain degree, they tend to oppose government intervention in the free market when it inhibits free trade and open competition.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_liberalism

These definitions clearly describe a system where freedom is prime, as opposed to shackling or taming markets. The idea of taming markets isn't consistent with the definitions of market liberalism.

[Brian Peacock]

You're bogged down in terminology.

[pErvinalia]

Well I specifically have a problem with you calling social democrats liberals. You are the one using these terms in your assertion.

[JimC]

The rEv/Brian debate here reminds me of theologians arguing over how many angels can fit on the end of a pin. I'm seeing rEv as a fiery Jesuit, and Brian as a dour, hard-line Calvinist...

[Joe]

Didn't this left/right argument start over a video by a guy saying left vs right isn't the real battle in the US; it's oligarchy vs democracy?