|
Post by Optimus on Dec 1, 2018 23:40:02 GMT -5
I've spoken/argued with a few DSA supporters recently and none of them seem to have a coherent idea of what it is they stand for other than some lame, ludicrous, completely-idealistic-but-totally-unrealistic talking points (e.g., open borders, "everyone should give their money away," free education, free healthcare, abolish ICE, etc.).
Can anyone here offer a coherent steelman position of Democratic Socialism as well as your best arguments against it?
I'm not looking to debate anyone, just generally looking to be better informed.
Thanks in advance.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Dec 2, 2018 14:53:58 GMT -5
Yeah, I got nothin'...
|
|
|
Post by michaelw on Dec 3, 2018 0:00:40 GMT -5
I've spoken/argued with a few DSA supporters recently and none of them seem to have a coherent idea of what it is they stand for other than some lame, ludicrous, completely-idealistic-but-totally-unrealistic talking points (e.g., open borders, "everyone should give their money away," free education, free healthcare, abolish ICE, etc.). Can anyone here offer a coherent steelman position of Democratic Socialism as well as your best arguments against it? I'm not looking to debate anyone, just generally looking to be better informed. Thanks in advance. IMO, the best Democratic Socialist writer of all time was George Orwell. He used the actual term a number of times in his writings and I think had a generally cohesive idea of what it meant to him. Orwell wrote in Homage to Catalonia: "Socialism means a classless society, or it means nothing at all." That's at least pretty straightforward, if nothing else, right? The "democratic" part, I think, Orwell mainly saw through the lens of opposition to totalitarianism. Obviously Orwell had no love for Marxist-Leninist regimes, as they tended to oppose the values Orwell cherished the most (free speech, etc). The best arguments against it? Probably Hayek's book The Road to Serfdom. It's a brilliant take-down of socialist central planning, tightly argued, and quite passionate without losing its levelheadedness, IMO. (Interestingly, Orwell actually published a book review of The Road to Serfdom, which wasn't actually that negative, all in all.) Getting back to the specific policies you mentioned (open borders, free healthcare, etc.), I don't think I would see those things as defining characteristics. Not that Democratic Socialists don't support them, but one can be a hardcore libertarian and support open borders just as easily, and lots of countries in the world today offer free healthcare without being labeled as socialist (Israel offers free healthcare and they are generally seen as right-wing, if anything.) Even the Scandinavian countries might be thought of as more social democracies, rather than Democratic Socialist. I think I would articulate the distinction in this way: that social democrats still operate within a framework that's essentially capitalist, while seeking to check what they see as the worst aspects of capitalism (mainly via labor laws and social safety-net policies). Whereas Democratic Socialists (consistent with Orwell) actually seek to challenge capitalism itself, which they see as the ultimate source of class differences. Anyway, those are my thoughts on it, fwiw. Unfortunately, I think nowadays we no longer have advocates for or against Democratic Socialism with nearly the same level of acuity and intellectual integrity as people like Orwell and Hayek. Which is probably why you're so frustrated with modern day advocates, who can't articulate what it is because they're less focused on the larger ideological picture and more focused on specific pet policies they want (like free healthcare). (And to be fair, I think you'll find a lot of people in the US who claim to oppose socialism who would also struggle to define it, for the same reason.)
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Dec 3, 2018 8:36:17 GMT -5
I think there's a running problem in this regard, when it comes to "isms" of all sorts: not only do many proponents of a particular "ism" often lack a coherent vision if what that "ism" actually entails, they also don't always agree with other proponents, from both theoretical and practical standpoints. Libertarianism is a great example in this regard; so many libertarians are forever creating purity tests and accusing others of not being "real" libertarians. But the libertarians do tend to have actual ideologies, can differentiate themselves from other libertarians and other "isms" with ease. The Democratic Socialists seem to be wanting in this regard. Incidentally, on Orwell, I highly recommend Emma Larkin's Finding George Orwell in Burma. It's a great read. And I'm a big fan of these sorts of travelogues (equally good is Forgotten Fatherland: The Search for Elisabeth Nietzsche and most of Robert Kaplan's stuff, starting with Balkan Ghosts).
|
|
|
Post by michaelw on Dec 3, 2018 16:32:28 GMT -5
I'm sure I would enjoy Finding George Orwell in Burma, as I've read a lot of Orwell and also visited Burma last year. Apparently in the days of the military junta, Burmese intellectuals had a bit of a joke about Orwell: that he wrote a whole trilogy of novels about their country: Burmese Days followed by Animal Farm and Nineteen-Eighty-Four.
|
|
|
Post by nighttimer on Dec 5, 2018 16:04:33 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Don on Dec 7, 2018 19:08:55 GMT -5
First question: The option workers/owners is missing, creating a false dichotomy. Second question: Same false dichotomy. As the economy is currently managed, some regulations help, some hinder, the overall performance of the economy. Fifth question: several possibilities are omitted, and one of those listed equates insurance with health care. I'd favor a "healthcare card" similar to EBT, an option not offered.
Overall, I'm not too impressed with the shoehorning going on in the questions.
The sixth question was easy for me, though.
|
|
|
Post by Optimus on Dec 7, 2018 19:50:20 GMT -5
First question: The option workers/owners is missing, creating a false dichotomy. Second question: Same false dichotomy. As the economy is currently managed, some regulations help, some hinder, the overall performance of the economy. Fifth question: several possibilities are omitted, and one of those listed equates insurance with health care. I'd favor a "healthcare card" similar to EBT, an option not offered. Overall, I'm not too impressed with the shoehorning going on in the questions. The sixth question was easy for me, though. Do you have a definition of DS you can give? I'm looking to clear up for myself the muddy waters around this concept.
|
|
|
Post by Don on Dec 7, 2018 20:58:42 GMT -5
First question: The option workers/owners is missing, creating a false dichotomy. Second question: Same false dichotomy. As the economy is currently managed, some regulations help, some hinder, the overall performance of the economy. Fifth question: several possibilities are omitted, and one of those listed equates insurance with health care. I'd favor a "healthcare card" similar to EBT, an option not offered. Overall, I'm not too impressed with the shoehorning going on in the questions. The sixth question was easy for me, though. Do you have a definition of DS you can give? I'm looking to clear up for myself the muddy waters around this concept. Apparently even the DSA can't define it in less than a book. Maybe you can distill this down to a concise few pages.
|
|
|
Post by Don on Dec 8, 2018 4:55:44 GMT -5
They claim "Socialists have been among the harshest critics of authoritarian Communist states," yet what they claim to want will require either a hive mind or a highly bureaucratic, highly authoritarian control structure to keep all the donkeys pulling in the same direction. They make no provision for any choices but those aligned with the Grand Plan. As for running things "democratically," that translates to "bureaucratically run." No organization is going to put everything up for a vote; they'd never get anything done. Instead, there will be representatives elected to do the actual planning, and those bureaucrats will use the same skills politicians use today to gain those positions of power. Does anybody truly believe a whole economy staffed by popularity contests among competing liars at every level will be more successful than the terrible mix we have today, where at least at some levels actual capability and knowledge matter in job assignments? They fail to notice that corporations are legal fictions already created by and controlled by the government they expect to save them from those same corporations. They have no grasp of the evolutionary processes of the market that are necessary for economic growth, and how government short-circuits those processes with every decision it removes from the consumer. And they are totally unaware of System D. So how will they handle dissidents like Jake, who makes and sells prohibited products, or Sally, who likes earning her money with prohibited acts? I'd imagine the same way other authoritarian power structures do. By severe and escalating punishment. What they want to do will remove all incentives for working and all the pricing information necessary for successfully allocating scarce resources across unlimited wants. It's economic fairy dust, and can only play out as we've seen it play out time and time again, from the USSR to Venezuela. I'll repeat part of a quote I recently used. "When money ceases to be the tool by which men deal with one another, then men become the tools of men. Blood, whips and guns–or dollars. Take your choice–there is no other–and your time is running out.” If someone can show a false dicotomy in that quote and genuinely point me to a third way, I'd love to hear it.
|
|