janw@inmet.UUCP (11/22/85)
[Gabor Fencsik {ihnp4,dual,hplabs,intelca}!qantel!gabor ]
I hope to return to Gabor's article, and I am sure others will.
So, I feel free to do just a bit at a time.
>So a discussion of the remarkable symmetries between the two camps
>might be refreshing and also help break up the monotony of the ritual
>Socialist vs. Libertarian slugfest for a while.
A worthy goal. But that's the property of party spirit in gen-
eral. Liberal vs. Conservative is even worse. In addition to
your "remarkable symmetries" (all negative) it would be nice if
someone could make a list of what they thought *positive*
features in these two (and other) camps. That could be a base to
build on.
>The most obvious traits shared by libertarians and socialists are matters
>of style: a strident tone of moral superiority ...
Have you read the two Friedmans ? Do you detect that tone ? (I'll
grant you Ayn Rand in this respect).
>... frequent appeals to first principles ...
That's their situation as weak minorities: they can't assume
their principles are more or less recognized, and they can't
appeal to practical politics at this stage. It has nothing
to do with the *content* of their creed. You won't find
Socialists in power spending much time on first principles.
>... and, shall we say, a selective approach to history.
Do you mean they *distort* it (some do, I'm sure) or that they
select what is relevant to them ? The latter is as legitimate as
a strategist concentrating on military history, or an economist
on economic history.
[Till next time] Jan Wasilewskyjanw@inmet.UUCP (11/22/85)
[Gabor Fencsik {ihnp4,dual,hplabs,intelca}!qantel!gabor ]
>Socialists have always seen history as a struggle
>between Progress and Reaction in various disguises.
No, not always. Pre-19th century socialists had little use
for progress. Their utopias were static, stressing fair distribution
and rigid behaviour control. Age of Progress changed that. Then
Age of Disillusionment changed it again.
In particular, Marx's system is totally based on technical pro-
gress. The ultimate reason the old social order is doomed is, ac-
cording to him, that it becomes a brake on productivity growth.
Marx's delight with every technical innovation was so great that
Engels especially dwelt on it in his short and eloquent funeral
oration. (Marx's typical remark was that, as Steam provided the
technical base for Capitalism, so would Electricity for Social-
ism). The most important item of the post-revolution program of
the Communist Manifesto calls for the fastest possible increase
of productive forces.
But it seems that modern socialists are regressing - not just to
pre-Marx times, but pre-Saint-Simon. Again they stress distribu-
tion over production, security over progress; prefer Noble Sa-
vages (==the 3d world) over Western civilization; exaggerate the
role of natural resourses over that of technology; recommend sub-
sistence agriculture as the way to reduce hunger; and, in
developed countries, tend to make the condition of the *retarded*
citizens the benchmark by which to judge policies.
By contrast, for libertarians, every other word is *space*. At
times it may sound childish, but this progress-oriented mentality
is profoundly *healthy* and makes me feel that, while Socialism
has had a great past, Libertarianism may have a great future.
(Newborn ideas should be treated as gently as newborn babies -
even if both may seem all wet to you :-) ).
>[Note that, for Marx, this is an objective distinction without
>moral content; i.e., slaveholders and capitalists may, in some
>cases, qualify as progressive.]
Yeah, that's so on one level; but deep inside, Marx is *extreme-
ly* moralistic. Slaveholders may have been progressive in the 1st
century BC - yet Marx's hero was *Spartacus*. And remember your
accusation of a moral superiority attitude ? Marx had it too; but
at least he was hardly amoral.
[more later] Jan Wasilewskyjanw@inmet.UUCP (11/22/85)
[Gabor Fencsik {ihnp4,dual,hplabs,intelca}!qantel!gabor ]
>1) Democracy
>The attitude of the two camps toward democratic guarantees and institutions
>ranges from indifference to outright contempt.
There are two sides to the Western democratic ideal. One is per-
sonal rights, limited government, division of powers, local au-
thonomy, legal protection etc. ; the other is government by popu-
lar will and for the good of majority ("by the people, for the
people"). You discuss both sides and discover that libertarians
do not value the second, while the socialists tend to neglect the
first. You could add that libertarians value the first, social-
ists the second. Even if this is not enough for you - at least
your thesis about their common ground is undermined.
Your indictement of socialists concentrates on the teachings of
their classics, and they are not really bound by them. This is
unfair. A fairer point could be made that they alternate
between proclaiming to have nothing in common with totalitarian
"socialist" countries *and* extolling their presumed social
achievements. However, in those moods when their model is Sweden
and not Cuba, you can hardly hold them to be antidemocratic.
And the idea of "working-place democracy" (which I don't like for
other reasons) shows that democracy is a value for them.
As for libertarians, their principle is that the government is
best that governs least. You would not ban Thomas Jefferson
from the democratic fold, would you ? There is a certain
exuberant maximalism among them that justifies your statement
that they take rights for granted - and, I might add, demand
*more* rights. But asking for more is only dangerous
for someone in Oliver Twist's position, and then things are
bad anyway. Why not get all the liberty that the market
will bear ?
This might be a good strategy even for *keeping* existing rights.
There is a natural drift towards *more* power for all branches of
government. New prerogatives are added every year, and almost
never given up. Libertarianism, insofar as it is at all
widespread, is a good corrective. If it were not for some liber-
tarian instincts in the populace, we would have had, e.g., inter-
nal passports long ago - and the government would be more effi-
cient. We do not want that, do we ?
[to be continued] Jan Wasilewskyjanw@inmet.UUCP (11/23/85)
[Gabor Fencsik {ihnp4,dual,hplabs,intelca}!qantel!gabor ]
The following is Gabor's criticism of libertarians and Marxists,
respectively.
>The democratic process will not do [for libertarians] as a source
>of legitimacy for the state: this is the translation of the slo-
>gan 'Taxation is Theft'.
>Marx's ... assertion that 'human essence is the totality of so-
>cial relations' is, as far as I can see, incompatible with any
>notion of inalienable rights.
There seems to be an implicit contradiction here. Can the demo-
cratic process, in your view, legitimize alienation of all
rights, or only of some rights; and if so, which ?
(I myself buy neither the idea of an unchangeable human essence,
nor of a constant set of inalienable rights; nor, on the other
hand, of majority will as a legitimate source of individual right
abrogation. Human nature changes, but it exists. Rights are not
granted by society; nor do they pre-exist society; they are esta-
blished by individuals' successful resistance to society. It is
an ongoing fight. I prefer societies in which liberties, once
gained, become inalienable. This has been, by and large, the
Anglo-Saxon tradition from 1689 until WWI).
Jan Wasilewskycarnes@gargoyle.UUCP (Richard Carnes) (12/01/85)
I agree with much of what Gabor says in the referenced article, but I will mention a point or two of disagreement. >The attitude of the two camps toward democratic guarantees and institutions >ranges from indifference to outright contempt.... > > Unfortunately, such practices do have their >roots in the works of the founders who consistently devalued >democratic guarantees and institutions by using terms such as >'bourgeois parliaments', 'bourgeois "press freedom"', 'bourgeois >courts' and the like, creating an atmosphere in which the abolition >of jury trials, execution of hostages or armed action against the >Constitutional Assembly seemed quite permissible to Bolsheviks of >Lenin's generation. There is a tendency, with which I am not in sympathy, among some socialists to denigrate liberal-democratic institutions and values as "bourgeois", something to be abolished with the coming of socialism. And yes, one can find the "roots" of this in Marx and Engels. Similarly, there is a tendency towards authoritarianism and anti-intellectualism among many Christians of the present day, and the roots of this tendency can be found in the New Testament. This does not mean, however, that Christianity is inherently authoritarian and anti-intellectual, nor does it mean that socialist views imply indifference or contempt towards liberal democracy. Indeed, Marx was a profound believer in democracy throughout his life except for a short period around 1850, although he was of course critical of the political forms of liberal capitalist society. The libertarian/socialist debate is really a debate about the nature, viability, and justice of capitalism and its relation to democratic political life. To most Americans, capitalism and democracy either are identical or coexist harmoniously. I think both libertarians and socialists are right to recognize a profound incompatibility between them. Each proposes a radical cure for the ills of society which they perceive as deriving from this incompatibility: (1) Smash the state, abolish politics, and establish a "pure" form of capitalism. My criticisms of this view are in brief that capitalism is inherently unjust and inherently dehumanizing (preventing people from realizing their potential), and (perhaps more important) that man is *by nature* a political animal, and nature cannot be driven out with a pitchfork in this manner. (2) Smash capitalism by abolishing the particular form of property relations which are its basis, and extend democratic political life over a wider realm. I distinguish between the sophisticated libertarianism of such important philosophers and economists as Nozick, Hayek, and M. Friedman, and the Brain-Damage Libertarianism that seems to be popular on the net. The latter is the philosophy of those who have heard tell that the free market is the most efficient economic system but do not ask what "efficient" means and do not notice that the system which has been shown to be efficient is a highly abstract model which no economist claims is an accurate representation of the real world; who advocate a society in which coercion is "minimized" without asking what that could possibly mean; who forbid the "initiation of coercion" on basic principle and in the next breath say they have a right to initiate coercion against someone who trespasses on their property or tries to steal it; who assume without question that individuals have a moral right to own privately the means of production, apparently on the grounds that they have been owned privately in the past; who claim to be defenders of "liberty" but in fact defend only the liberty of private property-owners to do as they wish with their own property; who declare that "taxation is theft" as if this were self-evident; and who, in short, do not understand what it is to think philosophically (which means *rigorously*) about political and social questions. -- Richard Carnes, ihnp4!gargoyle!carnes
gabor@qantel.UUCP (Gabor Fencsik@ex2642) (12/03/85)
In <28200323@inmet.UUCP> Jan Wasilewski writes: > The following is Gabor's criticism of libertarians and Marxists, > respectively. > > >The democratic process will not do [for libertarians] as a source > >of legitimacy for the state: this is the translation of the slo- > >gan 'Taxation is Theft'. > > >Marx's ... assertion that 'human essence is the totality of so- > >cial relations' is, as far as I can see, incompatible with any > >notion of inalienable rights. > > There seems to be an implicit contradiction here. Can the demo- > cratic process, in your view, legitimize alienation of all > rights, or only of some rights; and if so, which ? The democratic process legitimizes the making of public policy. Taxation is an adjunct and precondition of public policy. Saying 'Taxation is Theft' is an attack on the legitimacy of political power whether or not such legitimacy flows from the democratic process. This is the line of thought implicit in the first paragraph you quoted. Nothing was said about rights there, unless 'freedom from taxation' is regarded as a fundamental right or, alternatively, legitimacy is understood to mean 'a licence to abrogate rights'. But of course it means nothing of the sort. The striking thing about the democratic process is its ability to create new rights at an alarming rate. For example, the right of disabled children to 'mainstream' education, the right of schizophrenics to be released from mental hospitals and the rights flowing from affirmative action laws or the Freedom of Information Act have all been codified within the last ten years or so. It seems that the logic of the democratic process gravitates toward inventing more rights rather than abolishing existing ones (whatever one may think of the recent crop). So I cannot make sense of your question without some pointers to the implicit contradiction you are hinting at. ----- Gabor Fencsik {ihnp4,dual,lll-crg,hplabs,intelca}!qantel!gabor
franka@mmintl.UUCP (Frank Adams) (12/08/85)
In article <261@gargoyle.UUCP> carnes@gargoyle.UUCP (Richard Carnes) writes: >To most Americans, capitalism and democracy either >are identical or coexist harmoniously. I think both libertarians and >socialists are right to recognize a profound incompatibility between >them. This is a good example of what I mean when I say socialism and libertarianism are equally stupid. Capitalism and democracy *do* coexist harmoniously, and even reinforce each other. Frank Adams ihpn4!philabs!pwa-b!mmintl!franka Multimate International 52 Oakland Ave North E. Hartford, CT 06108