BLOGGERS NEEDED!
Interested in sharing your opinions about progressive politics? Want to highlight the great work of local community groups and individuals? Then join our blog team. Send us an email and we can sign you up. apafp AT apaforprogress DOT org.
Since the healthcare debate has plateaeud a little bit, I figured now would be a perfect time to introduce some practical Political Science for the politically-inclined Asian Pacific American. Today, the topic is "socialism." And I'm here to tell you that it's just a word.
Saying I like socialism is like saying that your favorite food is a muffin. A reasonable inquiry would then be: "Well, what kind of muffin? Chocolate chip muffin or blueberry muffin? Muffins that taste good, looks good, smells good, or feels good to the touch?"
Let me show how defining socialism is such a clusterf*ck by highlighting only one of the possible breakdowns of the living idea of "Socialism." I won't even touch Socialism as a Philosophy because that tends to get even more convoluted. Here's a peek of where a discussion on Socialism as a Philosphy could lead to. To quote a founder of the Social Democratic Party of Germany in a Chapter titled: "Socialism and Ethics":
"Pity for poverty, enthusiasm for equality and freedom, recognition of social injustices and a desire to remove it, is not socialism. Condemnation of wealth and respect for poverty, such as we find in Christianity and other religions, is not socialism. The communism of early times, as it was before the existence of private property, and as it has at all times and among all peoples been the elusive dream of some enthusiasts, is not socialism. The forcible equalization advocated by the followers of Barbeuef, the so-called equalitarians, is not socialism."
To be fair, the guy was saying that socialism was all about "class struggle" in praise of the so-called Marxist idea that socialism was merely a transitional phase (characterized by "class struggle") from capitalism to communism.
Wouldn't even know how to reconcile that into a cohesive definition of the Philosophy of Socialism. So we continue to:
Socialism as a Political-Economic Theory
According to Wikipedia, socialism is ("contrary to popular belief") an "economic system" distinct from capitalism. It then attempts to define this system as one that advocates for "state, worker, or public ownership and administration of the means of production and allocation of resources, characterized by equal access to resources for all individuals with an egalitarian method of compensation." If this were true, then, it would be reasonable to classify everything from Thomas Paine's concepts of estate taxes and social security income to high regulation and high taxation as socialism. It would also make it reasonable for conservatives and libertarians to equate socialism to "big government intervention."
Also according to conservatives and libertarians, socialism is simply "redistribution of wealth." Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., clearly not a member of the formers, apparently drank this kool-aid by proclaiming that the U.S. system is "socialism for the rich and free enterprise for the poor" in his critique of horse and sparrow economics.
Others may claim that socialism is a fancy way of saying the "spreading of risk." I've seen fringe conservatives use this line of attack arguing against insurance companies as being "socialist." I've also read prominent 19th century socialists arguing that socialism would not be the end to industry and the creative process; rather, that socialism, precisely because it spreads the risk so evenly throughout a commune that people will be able to take as many risky ventures as their heart desires so long as the profit motive is not involved.
Looking back at history, in antebellum Virginia, Edmund Ruffin made a case for slavery as socialism. He wrote:
"Our system of domestic slavery offers in use, and to the greatest profit for all parties in the association, the realization of all that is sound and valuable in the socialists' theories and doctrines . . . Thus, in the institution of domestic slavery, and in that only, are most completely realized the dreams and sanguine hopes of the socialist school of philanthropists."
I certainly don't agree, but that's because my definition of socialism doesn't coincide with this Virginian from so long ago.
I, as a self-proclaimed democratic-socialist, define it as "collective ownership and democratic management of the socially necessary means of production and distribution." This is how myself and many of the bloggers on the Huffington Post can unequivocally say that the United States already has socialism in the form of socialized roads (interstate highway), socialized healthcare (VA system), and socialized education (public education). We see the United States as a mixed economy; an economy that is a combination of both "socialist" and "capitalist" concepts.
Karl Marx would have shot and hung all of the above and then proceed to write a new section in his Communist Manifesto to rant about our collective ignorance. Actually, he might even single me out and shoot me a second time for being a "reactionary conservative-socialist," which he went at length to descredit in his landmark publication.
There are many more ways to define socialism depending on what your political worldview is or even what kind of self-identified socialist you are. Play around with the hands of the clock and turn the globe a bit and you see everything from utopian-socialist, libertarian socialist, to anarcho-socialists, to even neo-socialists.
And so it goes...
I've once had someone tell me that "socialism" has lost its revolutionary ways. They're 99% thinking of Karl Marx or Che Guevara when they say that. You're going to know better. The seeds of "socialism" were not planted in the writings of the Communist Manifesto or in the preachings of Henri de Saint Simon. It's with Plato and the ideas he lays out in his book The Republic, for better or for worse.
Now let's make it interesting and apply socialism to the interwebs. People have also made statements to the fact that Web 2.0 is socialism. Karl Marx would explode.
To say that socialism is impossible to define is simply not true. But to say that one can definitively define socialism... well, good luck to that. It's never been done.
APAP is a national network of progressive Asian Americans and allies. We count on the support of our members and friends to continue our work of advancing progressive ideas. Please consider joining today.
Membership is just $20 per year and members receive discounts to events and merchandise.
| User | Points |
|---|---|
| curtis | 1953 |
| ebeh | 1161 |
| Madhuri | 1145 |
| erinjerri | 1074 |
| oliveoil | 578 |
| spamfriedrice | 551 |
| Calvin Prashad | 358 |
| JennyG | 281 |
| jenn | 219 |
| chriswong | 190 |
This has got to be one of the more scatterbrained attempts to define socialism that I've ever seen. Lots of half-baked assumptions and very bad historical connections are being drawn. Plato's Republic is the source of socialism? How ahistorical and non-specific can you get?
Koala, while your comments and rants are sometimes amusing, this was a particularly bad piece of scholarship on your part.
Your points are well-taken. I can only point you to google.com/books.
Oh and here's the other thing. You can only really see my view points if and most likely only if you see the United States as a mixed economy.
Do you see it as a mixed economy?
I object mostly to the misplaced historical threads not whether or not the US has a mixed economy. They're nonsensical. You can't make casual asides like:
I pretty much guffawed at that. Have you ever taken a philosophy course or actually read the Republic? It's one of those errors so egregious that the rest of your argument is just ignored.
You chose the wrong thing to object to. None of my "arguments" are original, if you can even call them arguments.
If you really and truly object to Plato being listed as the father of socialism, then by all means, edit his name out of the wikipedia article: "Contributions to Socialist Thought." Aristotle was the father of capitalist thought, btw.
This is why gyuliusceasar always had the upper hand the last time you tried to do this "debate" thing. You gotta do your homework, allan.
Ok, you're using Wikipedia to score intellectual points. Bad idea. Click on this
http://screencast.com/t/PaRbJ4MrJ
That's a screenshot of the article showing Plato's listing on that article "Contributions to Socialist Thought". Notice that Plato is just listed there and unlike the rest of the authors on the list, his "contributions" to socialist thought are not enumerated. Further, the article has been categorized as "unassessed" and of "unknown importance" within Wikipedia itself. If you had bothered to check the talk page for this article, you would have noticed that.
As for gyuliuscaesar winning debates on me, I have several outstanding challenges to him on both his facts and reasoning that he's failed to address. He's also tried to cite sources that he in fact, completely misread.
This is the reason I'm hesitant to discuss things with either of you. You cite "facts" and when people challenge them and prove them completely wrong, you and gyulius don't bother to do the honorable thing and retract the argument that were supported by those "facts". That's disingenuous in the extreme.
In fact, you tried to point me to books.google.com, with no links from you (that's right, you're also lazy when it comes to citations). I decided to do some sleuthing myself. Here's what I found from the International Socialist Review:
Notice how I do things? Arguments are complete with links and citations. You almost never do that. gyulius tries it but he never bothers to read any of his sources. And seriously, Wikipedia is not a good source for philosophical work. And if you do use it, at the very least, check the sources that are cited. That's real deal intellectual work. I know you don't like to do it but until you do, I doubt you'll get anyone serious to listen to you.
allan, I can't tell if you're serious or you're joking. I'm hoping the latter. First of all, why so serious? You're a neo-liberal. What do you care what socialism is? And for further information, yes. I am lazy. I am sorry.
Take everything I say in the spirit that it's intended. I have my tongue firmly in my cheek. If you look at the tags of this post, I clearly write "for fun."
I'm sorry I didn't bother to check the wikipedia page for all that information. Seriously, it was the first thing that came up in google. And for all I care, it's still up there. Go ahead and delete it and see if somebody is passionate enough to put it back up. It won't be me, trust me.
There's a reason why I don't have any links. If you check your logs, you will see that every time I have put in a hyperlink, your spam filter has rejected my post. I'm sorry I made you take the time out of your busy schedule to point out what I could not do.
Now, if I prove you wrong, then you will "do the honorable thing" and retract the statement?
Let's start with Exhibit A, Lawrence Lessig, my hero and yours too, I bet.
On a blog post on www.lessig.org titled: "On "socialism": round 2."
"...never in the history of "socialism" have people so understood it (there have of course been plenty of voluntary communities that have called themselves "socialist")."
That's the premise.
Turn to Exhibit B: What happens when you look up "socialism" and "plato" in google books.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/41935467@N04/3866598126/
Exactly what kind of search terms did you use to conjure up your "sleuthing?" No sleuthing was necessary. It's right in front of you.
Exhibit C:
My primary source was a book entitled: Socialism before the French Revolution: a history by William Buck Guthrie. For your information, there are 40 references to Plato in this book.
Exhibit D:
I don't know how authentically "marxist" this website is, but here you go. http://www.marxists.org/subject/utopian/index.htm
Exhibit E:
Let's deconstruct the "International Socialist Review," considering the fact that at no time was there an "international" definition of socialism. Oh wait, no link to click! Hypocrisy much?
The lazy man's full citation to your quote is Simons, "The Republic of Plato," The International Socialist Review, p. 576, 1903.
Here's the ridiculous thing. The same publication 4 years later advocates "The Republic" as a must read for the "working man." The International Socialist Review, p. 509, 1907.
The same publication in 1914, an advertisement, "Plato's REPUBLIC is the great original upon which all other Utopias, from Sir Thomas More to Edward Bellamy, are patterned. It differs from modern Socialist writings in that its reasoning from first to last is based on the unfounded assumption . . . " International Socialist Review, p. 446, 1914.
Oh wait, what do I see here down 3 links? The Andover review, p. 304, 1885, "Plato's "Republic" is socialistic.
Of course, the fun thing is, to every article that supports your "The Republic" is not socialism argument, there are 10 other authors arguing the opposite. Karl Marx would have most definitely denounced the idea, in fact, some people argue that the Communist Manifesto was the anti-"The Republic."
When the definition of "socialism" is A) regional, B) depends on when it was said, and C) depends on who said it, to say that you are completely right is foolish and quite "disingenuous."
To be fair and in your defense, I can't possibly be right, either. But to say that I'm completely wrong is, again, foolish and quite "disingenuous."
The fact that you find my post scatter-brained and that you didn't like it is well taken. I deserve the criticism. If I could retract it, I would. Unfortunately, your spam filter refuses to allow me to edit my blog post.
Now, will you do the honorable thing and retract all your nonsense in the above-post?
Sigh, this is exactly as I predicted. Scattershot quotes employed to produce a display of scholarship with little or no attention to the quotes themselves. When one fails, you go off to another set. I'm going to do you the honor of going through each of your "exhibits" but this is tedious.
Exhibit A. You're making an argument by authority. Lessig is an authority on free speech, copyright law and the Internet. He's not one on the philosophical underpinnings of socialism. And that source you cite at http://bit.ly/DXefq is not making the argument you think it is making. This already strengthens my perception that you're careless in your citations.
Exhibit B. You are using search results as proof of the tie between socialism and Plato's Republic. Do you even know how search engines work??? Just because someone mentions Plato, it is not proof positive that someone is making the claim that Plato is the "seed" of socialism as you claim in your original post.
Exhibit C. Dude, this is someone's PhD dissertation from 1907. Nevertheless, it seems to have also appeared in the American Historical Review. Consider the source and the time it was written in. Are you seriously going to take the opinion of an "Establishment" journal in 1907 over the International Socialist Review when it comes to discussing socialism especially when the quotes are contemporaneous with one another?
Exhibit D. Once again, do you bother to read your sources? Take a look at http://bit.ly/yVf2w
Notice that it actually outlines how Marx critiqued utopias as not being socialism.
Exhibit E. Actually, the link is there under the words "what I found" -- here it is again.
http://bit.ly/WmQAZ
Apparently, moving your mouse over text is too hard.
You cite the Andover Review which is apparently a religion and theology journal that was published by conservatives. A biased source, don't you think? You would have known this if you had bothered to research your source: http://bit.ly/1qm6mM
Your own quote of an "ad"(!?!?) in the International Socalist Review seems to basically negate your own point. The rest of the ad goes on to point out the difference between Marx and Plato.
Do you even read your sources? Seriously, you're wasting my time.
I think you're trying to fall back on a nihilistic point whereby no definitions of socialism are adequate. Ok, but that basically renders your original post kinda meaningless, no?
I'm just pointing out that committed socialists will disagree with your rendering of the Republic as a "seed" of socialist thought. It's not only careless but also sloppy. And when someone calls you out on it, you put up more citations that you haven't even bothered to read fully. It's embarrassing.
As for the spam filter, it stays on.
Your points are well-made. So we'll compromise and I'll write here that okay, Plato isn't the father of socialism. I was wrong and you were right. And I leave what I wrote in the blog post up there because I can't edit it or make it full of hyperlinks because you think your spam filter is perfect.
Here's your problem, allan. Karl Marx is not the father of socialism. "Socialism" is not how Marx defined it. There were plenty of "socialists" before him that didn't agree with him and there were plenty of "socialists" that didn't agree with him afterwards. If you have read the Communist Manifesto, you would realize that he spends an entire section blasting other "socialists," like Robert Owen or Thomas More.
Where are the "committed" socialists you speak of? People you know in person or should I go ask Raul Castro? Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont is a democratic-socialist. I don't know if they'd agree that the "seeds" of socialism come from Plato's Republic, but at least, Sanders would agree with me that Karl Marx only represented Marx's view of socialism in 1848 in Germany.
Here's another thing. Your attacks are all pure ad-hominem. If I don't have a Ph.D. in socialism, I should not speak about what socialism is, but if I'm a "committed" socialist, then I'm free to speak about socialism all I want. This makes no sense.
What is a socialist, allan? After all that time you've "wasted" you could have simply said: "This is wrong, socialism is this." Except you didn't. Would a "committed" socialist believe in democracy, first of all?
You call my point, "nihilistic," and that's fine. You're also correct that my post was essentially meaningless. That was kind of my point. Notice that I compared socialism to muffins.
Do I even read my sources? No. I glimpse through them looking for things that suit my interest. (see "for fun" tag)
And here: because you are so committed to this "stick to my arguments, *wah*" I'll go back to my exhibits.
Exhibit A: No, I'm making the argument of you-wouldn't-dare-cross Lessig because we both adore him. At least, I assume so. I was apparently wrong. I'm sorry. I take this back.
Exhibit B: Yes, you're right, it doesn't prove that Plato was the "seed" of socialism. But, it does prove that to say there is NO connection is... "lacking research."
Exhibit C: Yes. Because, according to Wikipedia (dismiss immediately! the wiki!), the International Socialist Review is the name of 3 different publications of the same name operated out of the United States of America. The country MOST clueless about socialism. The articles, ads, whatever that we're quibbling about were written when the publication was Marxist. Of course, it's going to try to disassociate the "utopian" (Thomas More, Robert Own, "Plato") from "socialism" (Karl Marx). This argument of yours is pure hypocrisy. Hm, this might be right. Let's dismiss it as "non-sensical" by pointing to something else.
Exhibit D: Here's a quote from the exact same website. "Utopian Socialism: The socialist movement prior to Marx and Engels was predominantly utopian in character..." Notice how I've REPEATEDLY said that Marx would have criticized A or B because it wasn't HIS socialism. I've made it on the original blog post and I've made it in the comments boards too. Not that I think this website is authentic, but apparently, that doesn't matter to you as long as it fits YOUR facts. This is so far the dumbest argument you've made because you prove that you don't even bother to read what I write--yet you ask that I do yours. What drives this colossal ego of yours? I'd like to know.
Exhibit E: I apologize profoundly for not actually clicking around. It would have been classy for you to say "oh, I forgot to underline it, or make it more obvious." Okay, you're not really making an argument here. You're just whining that I didn't read what I cite against you. A) Yes, a Marxist Publication wants you to read The Republic so it can get people to understand "socialism," but wants to point out that it's not Marx's "socialism" and B) the fact that the conservatives agree would then... would what? Do you automatically dismiss whatever a conservative says? Again, what drives this colossal ego of yours?
Back to the top.
Lastly, this is where I'm coming from:
http://www.madatoms.com/site/blog/generation-gaps
You are Gen X, I am a Millenial.
Q.E.D.
Post new comment