Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Arjen]

Following principles to logical extremes shouldn't be conflated with actual political views considered "left," "right" or whatever. Actual political views are far more complex and nuanced--or less charitably, they're far more messy and at least seemingly contradictory in some respects. They also tend to differ from country to country, and even region to region, social milieu to social milieu within the same country, where they're shaped by the unique histor, practical issues and social interactions of the area/milieu in question.

I agree with you in the sense of the differentiation through peoples and area's and political views. However, here we can discuss some philosophically "pure" ideas, I thought

h_k_s Terrapin Station Man With Beard Could you answer the following, by the way, I am trying to collect thoughts and opinions on it:

The other day I heard someone discuss the political field in an original way. Where I am used to divide political opinions into left and right, with on both ends a totalitarian model (national socialism and communism), this person claimed those 2 extremes were actually the same thing. I did argue this before, given that both are forms of fascism and contain an extreme of socialism. It surprised me, because, to be honest, I do like a touch of socialism, but not the extreme forms. The argument was that on the left side, we see a strong and large government, while on the right side, we see smaller governments with less laws. The extreme right therefore should be anarchism.

Thanks in advance.

Unrestricted capitalism would be disastrous for regular people wanting utilities.

Believing that unrestricted capitalism will regulate itself is just magical thinking.

I am thinking that it isn't actually anarchy (free market, capitalism, whatever ) that causes this problem. In a complete anarchy, a megacorp can't exist. That requires structure and a social cohesion. It needs either power or wealth to make that happen.

However, in a complete anarchy, and given a need to accomplish something, such organisations will be created! Which is quite likely going to be totalitarian. By force, bribes or promises, likely, it will come into existence. And, it has done so in reality. Ordo ab Chao and such. And, what's more, from the extreme right (anarchy, to follow that thought) perspective, that totalitarian structure has to be considered left. It is a social cohesion, at least. It is an argument for that theory, I think.

*disclaimer*
I am actually a proponent of social rules to limit the effect of force or cons on the population. The above might make you think something else

[Arjen]

So are you impressed yet? Or do I need to throw more verbiage at you?

At any rate, Plato and Aristotle are our primary philosophical sources. Herodotus also summaries the pro's and con's of democracy versus monarchy in comparing the Athenians with the Persians.

I like your description. It is quite good in many ways. But, I am looking for an answer in my quest (see the above post).

Thanks in advance!

[Jack D Ripper]

...

Unrestricted capitalism would be disastrous for regular people wanting utilities.

Believing that unrestricted capitalism will regulate itself is just magical thinking.

I am thinking that it isn't actually anarchy (free market, capitalism, whatever ) that causes this problem. In a complete anarchy, a megacorp can't exist. That requires structure and a social cohesion. It needs either power or wealth to make that happen.
...

You are confusing your terms. "Anarchy" and "capitalism" are not interchangeable or equivalent terms. In fact, they are mutually exclusive (i.e., they cannot both be at the same time and place).

anarchy

NOUN

mass noun
1 A state of disorder due to absence or non-recognition of authority or other controlling systems.

2 Absence of government and absolute freedom of the individual, regarded as a political ideal.

https://www.lexico.com/definition/anarchy

capitalism

NOUN

mass noun
An economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state.

https://www.lexico.com/definition/capitalism


Capitalism presupposes that there is a government, which means there is not anarchy, because anarchy is the absence of a government.


Complete anarchy would be Thomas Hobbes' famous "state of nature", described here in a famous passage from Chapter XIII of Leviathan, with some archaic spellings of words (it is an old text; "Warre" is now spelled "War", "continuall" is now spelled "continual", "feare" is now spelled "fear", "poore" is now spelled "poor"):

Whatsoever therefore is consequent to a time of Warre, where every man is Enemy to every man; the same is consequent to the time, wherein men live without other security, than what their own strength, and their own invention shall furnish them withall. In such condition, there is no place for Industry; because the fruit thereof is uncertain; and consequently no Culture of the Earth; no Navigation, nor use of the commodities that may be imported by Sea; no commodious Building; no Instruments of moving, and removing such things as require much force; no Knowledge of the face of the Earth; no account of Time; no Arts; no Letters; no Society; and which is worst of all, continuall feare, and danger of violent death; And the life of man, solitary, poore, nasty, brutish, and short.

https://www.gutenberg.org/files/3207/3207-h/3207-h.htm

Hobbes is describing a theoretical time before any government ever existed, not an anarchy after one has had a government. It is not necessarily an accurate description of any actual time; he is not claiming this is history. According to Hobbes, it is to get out of being in such a condition that people form governments and give up some of their liberty. So he is a kind of social contract theorist regarding the formation of government.

Without government, anyone could kill you and take what you have, if they are able and wish to do so. Or they could enslave you, or do any other thing to you. There would be no government authority to stop such things.

[Marvin_Edwards]

Communism is classic socialism. Bernnie Sanders made a horrible mistake embracing socialism when what he really meant to do was to embrace social programs. The distinction between socialism and social programs is that socialism is the central control of the planning and means of production of goods, but a social program is one that provides a specific benefit the public which meets a need that private enterprise either cannot or will not provide.

When I was advocating for a balanced budget amendment many many years ago, I ran into an on-line bulletin board for NTUF, the National Taxpayers Union Forum. These were mainly political Libertarians. As an aid to discussion, someone suggested we read F. A. Hayek's "The Road to Serfdom". Hayek was a prominent anti-socialist. And the book was a hard read for a progressive like myself. At least that was the case until we got to Chapter 9 Security and Freedom. In this chapter Hayek endorsed basically all of the social insurance programs, public health insurance, public unemployment insurance, public welfare, etc. The Libertarians were taken aback by this revelation about their saint.

[Ecurb]

You are confusing your terms. "Anarchy" and "capitalism" are not interchangeable or equivalent terms. In fact, they are mutually exclusive (i.e., they cannot both be at the same time and place).

Capitalism presupposes that there is a government, which means there is not anarchy, because anarchy is the absence of a government.

Property rights, which are essential to Capitalism, are outlined by the Government, and protected by the billy clubs and jails of the Government. Anarchy and Capitalism are not identical, and may be incompatible.

[Sy Borg]

this person claimed those 2 extremes were actually the same thing.

Are nazis and communists the same? On one hand, they both have a very bad record. If you country is getting invaded by either, its pretty bad news.

On the other hand, if someone says "I like the ideas of communism, I just think the way they were implemented sucks" we would understand what they are talking about. Some might argue that the sucking is an inevitable consequence of the ideas, but the statement nevertheless is understandable.

But if someone says "I like the ideas of Nazis, its just that they they were implemented sucks" it would be less clear what they are even going on about.

I suppose it depends on what you mean by "the same".

I actually have great confidence in the self correcting principle of he market.

Whether the market corrects itself or not strikes me as a somewhat ludicrous argument.

So what if it corrects itself?

Lets say we live in a utopia as envisioned by Ayn Rand.

I go into medicine business. I grab some random herbs and spice from my space shelf, get some gelatin capsules, fill them with the random herbs and spices, turn on my best charm and sell them as a cure for cancer.

Eventually, someone is going to figure out that I am selling things of no medicine value, make that public, and the market will correct itself. I will go out of business.

In the meantime, if my best charm was good enough, I sold worthless goods to people with cancer, some of whom have died as a result. That the market corrected itself did them no good at all.

Excellent observations. IMO it's probably best to ignore communism as an outlier, to treat it as "what China, Russia and NK" do. No one else seems keen to follow their lead. Hands up all nations that wish they were more like China, Russia or NK! None?

Democratic socialism, as practised in Scandinavia, shows how effective left-wing governance works. Simply, if you use social support mechanisms to prevent your citizens from being overly ignorant or damaged, they will be better citizens. So the extra tax paid for this ultimately benefits all via a more peaceful, smart and productive society. The alternative is the American model, with areas of great riches and a growing swathe of malcontents, who are becoming ever more aggressive.

On the other hand, the sane face of Nazism/fascism is nationalism, wanting the best for one's own. For instance, Australia has allowed in an unprecedented number of migrants in the last twenty years, our population growth being the fastest in the world. This has not made for a better society. All it did was boost GDP to mask some systemic issues. A government is elected to care for its citizens, not to provide a good place to live for people hailing from other jurisdictions. Crush loading and increased competition for work just ends up harming and sidelining many locals, who must wonder what they are paying their taxes for.

Nationalism is not a bad thing per se, no worse that focusing on doing what's best for one's family and not being too involved in the outside world. It's aggressive jingoistic nationalism that grates. Those who treat nationalism as a moral duty rather than a practicality will tend to be anti-democratic.

[Sculptor1]

Are nazis and communists the same? On one hand, they both have a very bad record. If you country is getting invaded by either, its pretty bad news.

On the other hand, if someone says "I like the ideas of communism, I just think the way they were implemented sucks" we would understand what they are talking about. Some might argue that the sucking is an inevitable consequence of the ideas, but the statement nevertheless is understandable.

But if someone says "I like the ideas of Nazis, its just that they they were implemented sucks" it would be less clear what they are even going on about.

I suppose it depends on what you mean by "the same".

Whether the market corrects itself or not strikes me as a somewhat ludicrous argument.

So what if it corrects itself?

Lets say we live in a utopia as envisioned by Ayn Rand.

I go into medicine business. I grab some random herbs and spice from my space shelf, get some gelatin capsules, fill them with the random herbs and spices, turn on my best charm and sell them as a cure for cancer.

Eventually, someone is going to figure out that I am selling things of no medicine value, make that public, and the market will correct itself. I will go out of business.

In the meantime, if my best charm was good enough, I sold worthless goods to people with cancer, some of whom have died as a result. That the market corrected itself did them no good at all.

Excellent observations. IMO it's probably best to ignore communism as an outlier, to treat it as "what China, Russia and NK" do. No one else seems keen to follow their lead. Hands up all nations that wish they were more like China, Russia or NK! None?

I'm not sure you are qualified to make that statement.
It would depend on your crieria and the "truthful" analysis of the conditions those countries offered to each individual being asked.
Things are becoming rather comfortable for Chinese generally these days and as they surpassthe West in technology I doubt whether the rather dysfucntional so-called democracy is going to give much solace to poverty striken westerners. You cannot eat a voting ballot.

Democratic socialism, as practised in Scandinavia, shows how effective left-wing governance works. Simply, if you use social support mechanisms to prevent your citizens from being overly ignorant or damaged, they will be better citizens. So the extra tax paid for this ultimately benefits all via a more peaceful, smart and productive society. The alternative is the American model, with areas of great riches and a growing swathe of malcontents, who are becoming ever more aggressive.

That's democracy.

On the other hand, the sane face of Nazism/fascism is nationalism, wanting the best for one's own. For instance, Australia has allowed in an unprecedented number of migrants in the last twenty years, our population growth being the fastest in the world.

They have also incarcerated many asylum seekers on islands to face rape and other abuses.

This has not made for a better society. All it did was boost GDP to mask some systemic issues. A government is elected to care for its citizens, not to provide a good place to live for people hailing from other jurisdictions. Crush loading and increased competition for work just ends up harming and sidelining many locals, who must wonder what they are paying their taxes for.

Nationalism is not a bad thing per se, no worse that focusing on doing what's best for one's family and not being too involved in the outside world. It's aggressive jingoistic nationalism that grates. Those who treat nationalism as a moral duty rather than a practicality will tend to be anti-democratic.

Nationalism is a bad thing per se or any other way. It is at the heart of all racism.

[Sculptor1]

ERROR

Hands up all nations that wish they were more like China, Russia or NK! None?

My apologies for above - I did not see the question mark in the statement whose existence would draw doubt as to my reaction.

[Arjen]

You are confusing your terms. "Anarchy" and "capitalism" are not interchangeable or equivalent terms. In fact, they are mutually exclusive (i.e., they cannot both be at the same time and place).

I did not. You did.

I specified absolute anarchy. The self correcting market principle is a situation that exists nowhere in any world. However, it is the theory that all transactions are allowed and unimpeded. That is the core of capitalism. I see your source and I am shocked. I fear newspeak. Because, while democracy and capitalism seem to be made for each other, capitalism (or: THE RIGHT TO POSESSION) is not a system of government. It is a basic human right.

Property rights, which are essential to Capitalism, are outlined by the Government, and protected by the billy clubs and jails of the Government. Anarchy and Capitalism are not identical, and may be incompatible.

Yes, but I do think that democracy and capitalism are good partners though.
Just like communism and a planned market economy.

Excellent observations. IMO it's probably best to ignore communism as an outlier, to treat it as "what China, Russia and NK" do. No one else seems keen to follow their lead. Hands up all nations that wish they were more like China, Russia or NK! None?

Exactly why socialism is such a bad idea. It always ends up with totalitarian communism, to suppress hard working and intelligent people.

Democratic socialism, as practised in Scandinavia, shows how effective left-wing governance works. Simply, if you use social support mechanisms to prevent your citizens from being overly ignorant or damaged, they will be better citizens. So the extra tax paid for this ultimately benefits all via a more peaceful, smart and productive society. The alternative is the American model, with areas of great riches and a growing swathe of malcontents, who are becoming ever more aggressive.

We have the same ideas in The Netherlands and exactly 0 people would call that democratic socialism. Let's be clear here:
The system of government is democracy.
Within this, multiple philosophies are proposed in multiple forms by a multitude of political parties. By voting, the majority selects which general ideas are most popular at the moment and a coalition is formed to obtain the majority and form a government. The formation contains negotiations about specific ideas that line up or contradict to dictate policy for the coming term.

I was actually planning to write a topic about the differences between the Dutch system (I am Dutch and therefore know more about it than about other systems) and the American system. My knowledge of that is also limited, so in that topic, I would ask for more information. The reason why i wanted to do so is due to the 2 party system. This is a weakness. I was hoping to discuss the American system in a way to discuss this situation. Anyway, perhaps you should not reply here and wait for that topic

Nationalism is a bad thing per se or any other way. It is at the heart of all racism.

Do you think the only way to go is globalism, then?

[Sculptor1]

...


I am thinking that it isn't actually anarchy (free market, capitalism, whatever ) that causes this problem. In a complete anarchy, a megacorp can't exist. That requires structure and a social cohesion. It needs either power or wealth to make that happen.
...

You are confusing your terms. "Anarchy" and "capitalism" are not interchangeable or equivalent terms. In fact, they are mutually exclusive (i.e., they cannot both be at the same time and place).

I agree with many things you say, but this is ********. Capitalism can thrive on anarchy and chaos, in fact it greatest achievements have been due to its ability to sow chaos and anarchy.
Capitalism has not regard or need for order.
Sociey needs to restrict capalism's excesses to achieve order, and most capitalists fear regulation and restrictions on trade and exploitation and will stop at nothing to sow discord and disinformation to disrupt the power of authorities to protect its citizenry from capitalism's worst excesses.

[hegel]

The other day I heard someone discuss the political field in an original way. Where I am used to divide political opinions into left and right, with on both ends a totalitarian model (national socialism and communism), this person claimed those 2 extremes were actually the same thing. I did argue this before, given that both are forms of fascism and contain an extreme of socialism. It surprised me, because, to be honest, I do like a touch of socialism, but not the extreme forms. The argument was that on the left side, we see a strong and large government, while on the right side, we see smaller governments with less laws. The extreme right therefore should be anarchism. When I was young, I did often argue in favour of anarchism, because the more force against freedom, the less people can solve their own problems and this limits for example the self correcting market principle of capitalism.
Is this a true thought? Is national socialism extreme left, but misunderstood as extreme right?

Previously, I think with @Greta I argued for a different division, with moderate governments (left and right) on 1 side and extremism (all sorts of fascism) on the other side. It would make the political discussions completely different, I thought. Is anarchy an extreme? Could the above fit my idea for a different division, which I was hoping to accomplish?

Please, amaze me with all of your insights :)

Libertarians do not believe in small government. They believe the purpose of government is to protect private wealth. They think police cars should patrol their neighborhood but not that the IRS should be auditing the tax returns of the wealthy.

Libertarians cannot recognized a public good because they think individuals are the ultimate political reality.

[Arjen]

Libertarians do not believe in small government. They believe the purpose of government is to protect private wealth. They think police cars should patrol their neighborhood but not that the IRS should be auditing the tax returns of the wealthy.

Libertarians cannot recognized a public good because they think individuals are the ultimate political reality.

Isn't that generalising a bit much? What makes you think that?

[Terrapin Station]

Libertarians do not believe in small government. They believe the purpose of government is to protect private wealth.

That's false--at least overall (maybe some libertarians feel that way, but most do not).

The reason that libertarians would retain a public police force, by the way, is that they believe that a police force is necessary to enforce the laws that libertarians retain, and they think that a private police force wouldn't be feasible because it would too easily be corrupted, so that it's not actually upholding the laws--it would only be enforcing what its owners want it to enforce.

Just for background, while I'm no longer "just a libertarian," for a long time I was, where I was involved for awhile with the libertarian party on local, state and national levels. At one point I carted Harry Browne around part of the country for campaign appearances.

I now consider myself a "libertarian socialist" however, because I no longer agree with libertarianism's approach to economics.

[Arjen]

The reason that libertarians would retain a public police force, by the way, is that they believe that a police force is necessary to enforce the laws that libertarians retain, and they think that a private police force wouldn't be feasible because it would too easily be corrupted, so that it's not actually upholding the laws--it would only be enforcing what its owners want it to enforce.

I think that is 100% true. It is why there should always be a police force (and not militia or something like that).

Just for background, while I'm no longer "just a libertarian," for a long time I was, where I was involved for awhile with the libertarian party on local, state and national levels. At one point I carted Harry Browne around part of the country for campaign appearances.

I now consider myself a "libertarian socialist" however, because I no longer agree with libertarianism's approach to economics.

Nothing is black and white. Perhaps you would enjoy my topic comparing Dutch and American politics? In my country, all parties have multiple ideas, nothing is purely "right" or "left", although some do associate or show themselves as such.

[Sy Borg]

I now consider myself a "libertarian socialist" however, because I no longer agree with libertarianism's approach to economics.

And the issue is so basic, I was taught it in high school Commerce class - economies of scale. Without, or with inadequate government intervention via progressive taxes and universal government services, wealth gaps grow. As has been seen.

In hindsight, this mess was probably always going to happen. Obviously the biggest, wealthiest and most powerful will have the greatest influence over public policy. And since power players compete for influence, they operate in a self-interested way. So the wealth gap grows.

Meanwhile, our civilisations have been built and powered by fossil fuels, so fossil fuel companies will naturally be amongst the largest and most powerful in the world. They are not about to annoy owners and shareholders by relinquishing their market share without a fight. So they act as an intertial force on climate change action. As you have implied, companies cannot be relied upon to work towards society's best interests - they have other compelling competing interests.