[Psudo]

A post from a blog I read struck me so strongly I felt inclined to repeat it. Read the quote and guess who said it. A link at the end will tell you who.

Quote:

In our own times, a coherent socialist movement is nowhere to be found in the United States. Americans are more likely to speak of a golden past than of a golden future, of capitalism's glories rather than of socialism's greatness. Conformity overrides dissent; the desire to conserve has overwhelmed the urge to alter. Such a state of affairs cries out for explanation. Why, in a society by no means perfect, has a radical party never attained the status of a major political force? Why, in particular did the socialist movement never become an alternative to the nation's established parties?

In answering this question, historians have often called attention to various charcteristics of American society... an ethnically-divided working class, a relatively fluid class structure, an economy which allowed at least some workers to enjoy what Sombart termed "reefs of roast beef and apple pie"--prevented the early twentieth century socialists from attracting an immediate mass following. Such conditions did not, however, completely checkmate American socialism.... Yet in the years after World War I, this expanding and confident movement almost entirely collapsed....

From the New York socialist movement's birth, sectarianism and dissension ate away at its core. Substantial numbers of SP members expressed deep and abiding dissatisfaction with the brand of reform socialism advocated by the party's leadership. To these left-wingers, constructive socialism seemed to stress insignificant reforms at the expense of ultimate goals. How, these revolutionaries angrily demanded, could the SP hope to attract workers if it did not distinguish itself from the many progressive parties, if it did not proffer an enduring and radiant ideal? How, the constructivists angrily replied, could the SP hope to attract workers if it did not promise them immediate benefits, if it did not concern itself with their present burdens?...

Through its own internal feuding, then, the SP exhausted itself forever.... The story is a sad but also a chastening one for those who, more than half a century after socialism's decline, still wish to change America. Radicals have often succumbed to the devastating bane of sectarianism; it is easier, after all, to fight one's fellows than it is to battle an entrenched and powerful foe. Yet if the history of Local New York shows anything, it is that American radicals cannot afford to become their own worst enemies. In unity lies their only hope.

Give up? Here's the answer. And here's a little more about the author.

I, for one, was surprised.

[JJ]

I think it's interesting, and probably a lot will be read into it. But probably more than is justifiable.

Mainly, I think it indicates that she is clearly a person "of the left," and thus clarifies that issue somewhat, since only a left-wing person cares about (or can fully grasp the significance of) the internal ideological schisms of the left. At the same time, however, the topic she is investigating is a perfectly reasonable one. Socialism is not popular in the States in the way it has been in many other western countries, and the question why has captivated many historians and scholars over the years.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that, yeah, she has the sort of leftist intellectual academic background extremely common to many, many respectable, professional, mainstream liberals. This is simply the kind of thing left-wing people study and write about in college, then stop caring about when they get serious jobs. And now a liberal president wants her on the Supreme Court. This is really not unusual stuff, and I think it's dumb for the GOP to act shocked, SHOCKED about the whole arrangement, as if the onus is somehow on the liberal president to work actively against his own ideological interests.

[Psudo]

I guess I make a fundamental distinction between a liberal and a socialist. (Perhaps that surprises some of you who know I like Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter, who explicitly do not.) A liberal, in my terms, wants people to be free, but judges that a little government-imposed fiscal regulation is necessary to empower government to ensure social permissiveness and block other establishments from imposing their will on society (corporations, the fanatically religious, militants of any sort, and other folks in smoke-filled, dark rooms plotting our futures against our will). A socialist, though, sees money and fiscal freedom not as the second priority on a list of virtues, but as the great evil and the primary problem in the world. A liberal is only for economic regulation when social ills are healed by the change, whereas a socialist opposes economic freedom for it's own sake.

I can reason with a liberal, as we share common pursuit of freedom. But I cannot with a socialist; freedom is their enemy.

Is that a flaw in my reasoning? It is valid by the origins of the terms, but I have a history of assuming old definitions still apply solely because they reasonably should. The world is not always reasonable.

[Lemmy]

I agree, Psudo. I've long said that people use the word "liberal" erroneously. Liberals are small-government people. Socialists are big-government supporters. Liberals are RIGHT of Conservatives on the political spectrum.

[JJ]

I don't think any educated person in professional life, especially political life, seriously subscribes to socialism as their fundamental, worldview-defining ideology. I don't even think the explicitly socialist party leaders of Europe do. I think people may have socialist IDEAS here and there, and most governments will maintain a few social programs that operate in a fairly socialist manner, but I think socialism as a whole is a discredited ideology.

You simply can't study economics or history and not conclude that a free-market economy, on the whole generates a higher standard of living than an entirely government-managed one. You can conclude that the free-market is not perfect, and needs to be constrained in many ways (which is the ideology of modern liberalism) but still respect the market as society's primary wealth, goods, and employment generator.

Over the last few decades, left-wingers in western society have become much more pro-market than ever before, often to the great frustration of the far-left. I feel like conservatives should make this much more of a talking point, and play the triumphalism card a lot more, rather than pretend that anyone is still taking socialism seriously.

[dodobird]

I think you're being a bit harsh on socialist's Psudo. Socialist don't merely oppose economic freedom simply to oppose economic freedom. You make it sound like these people don't even think and have no logic, although knowing your bias the comment does not surprise. The socialist opposes economic freedom because they believe that it moves power away from the group as a whole and into individuals and these individuals will eventually constrain or are constraining social freedoms. To use an old adage often used against some social ideas "power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely".

Its also interesting and telling to see the differences between how a socialist and a conservative may view the government. A conservative will look at the government and see a necessary evil full of corrupt and self serving politicians. A body that by its very nature of placing rules and regulations constrain the freedom of the individual. A socialist will look at the government and see a tool of the people. The representation of the people's will there to guide and nurture the people as a whole.

Of course this is all a bit ridiculous making grand generalizations and attempting to define and categorize such amorphous terms as these. You seem like a very intelligent person Psudo do not fall victim to this or your own bias.

[BartSimpson]

To Kagan's credit she allows people to read her graduate thesis. Now try finding Obama's. Still, as a lesbian socialist I don't even see the majority of Democrats in the Senate supporting her nomination in an election year.

[CKASlacker]

Psudo wrote:

A liberal, in my terms, wants people to be free, but judges that a little government-imposed fiscal regulation is necessary to empower government to ensure social permissiveness and block other establishments from imposing their will on society (corporations, the fanatically religious, militants of any sort, and other folks in smoke-filled, dark rooms plotting our futures against our will). A socialist, though, sees money and fiscal freedom not as the second priority on a list of virtues, but as the great evil and the primary problem in the world.

You might be a bit harsh on socialists, but I'll leave that for others to debate. I would tend to agree on what JJ said, in that the socialism that you describe has largely been discredited in most Western nations, such that even "socialist" countries (like Scandinavia) still utilize a free-market system for the most part.

Your definition of "liberal" is interesting since it describes what (and I consider myself to be one) a left-leaning/centrist (economically) libertarian. That is, to believe the governments primary purpose is to protect life, liberty and property of its citizens, and not to institutionalize morality or ethics. Therefore, small is best, *excepting* the fact that to protect economic freedom, government intervention *may* be required to break-up monopolies, protect consumer issues, etc. I believe a free-market system works best for consumer freedom when there are many small producers competing with each other fairly, and differentiating based on price, quality, efficiency, etc.

I don't like to pigeon-hole anyone into some sort of "Are you right or left wing?" stance since this leaves little common ground. In general, I think too much is made of definitions like "liberal" or "conservative", because it seems to be inconceivable (to some) to identify in general with one ideology, but reserve the right to be on the other side for certain issues (ie. a liberal who finds abortion to be immoral).

[Psudo]

Lemmy wrote:

I agree, Psudo. I've long said that people use the word "liberal" erroneously. Liberals are small-government people. Socialists are big-government supporters. Liberals are RIGHT of Conservatives on the political spectrum.

You're agreeing with something I didn't say. You're talking, perhaps, of Libertarians, who consider themselves classical liberals when, in fact, they're merely one of three descendant philosophies of classical liberalism. I'm talking of modern liberals as a philosophy that falls approximately center-left on the left/right spectrum, the modern incarnation of the anti-establishment, socially-concerned philosophy enshrined by Jefferson, Lincoln, and FDR.

Modern conservativism, liberalism, and libertarianism are all factions that derived from classical liberalism. They have common ground on which to debate, a common history with strong connections to the American and French Revolutions. Socialism does not.

JJ wrote:

I don't think any educated person in professional life, especially political life, seriously subscribes to socialism [...] You simply can't study economics or history and not conclude that a free-market economy, on the whole, generates a higher standard of living

I agree with these statements as applied to the modern, western world. But the mystery-author's quote above is not about the modern world, but early 20th century socialism. That's the socialism connected to the October Revolution and the Chinese Civil War, of George Orwell and Eugene Debs. The author is talking regretfully about the failure of a philosophy that, we agree, is discredited to gain traction in American government. That's at least wrong-headed, and perhaps intolerantly offensive. Giving a person with such beliefs high government office would be a mistake.

dodobird wrote:

Socialist don't merely oppose economic freedom simply to oppose economic freedom. You make it sound like these people don't even think and have no logic

I didn't intend to suggest that they do not think, or not well. They do think, and defend their points quite articulately. I intended to describe their reasoning: that fiscal freedom potentially leads to unacceptable inequality and, thus, must be stopped. That reasoning holds in their minds even if social issues are entirely off the table because economic inequality remains. I don't think socialists are stupid (Does anyone thing George Orwell, self-described socialist, was stupid?), but I do think they're wrong and, when in power, dangerous because of the inevitable negative consequences of their actions that their philosophy does not anticipate.

I recognize a difference between the early 20th century socialism the quote praises and individual social programs within a free-market system as often proposed now. I can consider social programs on their own merits (though I will usually oppose them), but they are not the issue I'm arguing. I'm arguing against the appointment-for-life of a prominent political figure with empathy for the discredited failure of a political philosophy that is early 20th century socialism. It's an example of fundamentally bad judgment in a person vying for a position in which their judgment is the fundamental criteria.

dodobird wrote:

this is all a bit ridiculous making grand generalizations and attempting to define and categorize such amorphous terms as these. You seem like a very intelligent person Psudo do not fall victim to this

I appreciate the compliment, but part of intelligence is the exercise of it. Classifying terms is an exercise of intelligence; if I am "very intelligent", it is because I practice using intelligence in such exercises.

I recognize the definitions are not precise due to the amorphous nature of the things described. But they're often very accurate and almost always close enough. That's good enough for an informal internet debate.

There can be no debate without definitions.

CKASlacker wrote:

Your definition of "liberal" is interesting since it describes what (and I consider myself to be one) a left-leaning/centrist (economically) libertarian.

I'm trying to describe liberals respectfully, as an ideology with which I disagree but still respect. By the origin of the term, liberals should be exactly that. I think of them as "left-wing Americans", whereas socialists are not (in my judgment) part of the American tradition at all, but an attempt to remake the world social system in a new form.

I don't expect liberals to accept Objectivism, so I object to liberals expecting me to accept Socialism. Even so, Objectivism has the benefit of being an American-grown ideology.

CKASlacker wrote:

it seems to be inconceivable (to some) to identify in general with one ideology, but reserve the right to be on the other side for certain issues (ie. a liberal who finds abortion to be immoral).

Pidgin-holing only works if one remembers exactly how imprecise pidgin-holes are.

[BeaverFever]

The "problem" with "Socialism" is that, unlike Capitalism, it is less a model and more a theory and collection of principles. Nobody has ever agreed upon a way to make real socialism work or even implement it anywhere. China, USSR, Cuba North Korea and the like are not viewed by most "Socialist" thinkers as ideal models of their theory; they are viewed as opressive regimes that have corrputed and bastardized their theory in order to try and legimitize their own rule.

Socialists around the world have never been able to agree on the details of what a socialist society actually looks like and how it would function in the real world. Marx wrote that there could never be true socialism (or social justice) until the world rids itself of the concept of nation-states. Contrary to what most think about socialists and "big government," Marx believed that the state will always be a tool wielded by the elites of any group to opress and exploit the masses for their own benefit. Many Marxists also believed that this had to happen on a global scale, since simply abolishing one's own state government would only cause other Capitalist and Imperialist states to invade and conquer them.

Socialists don't opposed economic freedom, in fact, they see socialism as the only true economic freedom. Capitalism is seen as economic serfdom, where human beings are commodities exploited for their labour and effectively 'owned' by their employer and are in constant service not only to these bosses but to other businesses from whom they must try to purchase the necessities of life. To socialists the 'freedom' to chose your master is not freedom at all, but an illusion of freedom.

In a socialist world, workers would collectively share ownership and control of the places in which they work, the products made with their labour and the resulting proceeds, instead of some absentee owner who contributes nothing new to production yet has permanent, universal ownership and control simply because he provided the initial start-up money, which he has long since recouped.

In a socialist world, there is no need to accumulate economic surplus on a grand scale or perpetually "grow" profits, which is a uniquely captialist idea. The socialist labourer is more directly involved with how those necessities are produced and the 'market' is more of an exchange between groups rather than between individuals, at least compared to the capitalist market.

[JJ]

I think it's perfectly reasonable for left-wing intellectuals to sympathize with some of the socialist movements of the early 20th Century (at least the softer ones that were not brazenly Soviet puppet front groups) because many of these movements are, in fact, the direct predecessors to some of the popular liberal causes and policies of today. Unionism, pacifism, civil rights, feminism... all were fairly bound up with socialism at one time or another.

The point is, though, that in their final analysis of history, liberals tend to concede that dogmatic socialism is problematic on some inherent level, and thus ultimately only have sympathy with the motivations of the early socialists. I don't know what Kagan's paper concludes, but I assume that she, like most liberal intellectuals, probably argues something to the effect that the Socialist Party was based on a number of false premises that failed to acknowledge the realities of modern American society, and thus ultimately failed as an inflectional political force due to its ideological and tactical naivete (and doubtlessly, internal struggles). Understanding this is central to one's education as a modern liberal in the same way understanding why it was wrong to oppose the Civil Rights Act or whatever is central to being a modern conservative.

I just think this kind of stuff has to be conceded as a precondition to having a mature political debate; there must some level of understanding that the "other side" has a right to express some degree of intellectual engagement or sympathy with the more extreme factions of the ideology. Otherwise we just get into crazy McCarthyite land, where one can't even read certain books without getting permanently branded as some sort of thought criminal.

[Lemmy]

Psudo wrote:

You're agreeing with something I didn't say. You're talking, perhaps, of Libertarians, who consider themselves classical liberals when, in fact, they're merely one of three descendant philosophies of classical liberalism. I'm talking of modern liberals as a philosophy that falls approximately center-left on the left/right spectrum, the modern incarnation of the anti-establishment, socially-concerned philosophy enshrined by Jefferson, Lincoln, and FDR.

Well, I read between the lines. But, there are more than three "decendants" of classical liberalism and libertarians come in a variety of forms. All of them, however, are something very different from the modern connotation of "liberal", which, as I said, is IMPO, a misuse of the word. In the modern lexicon, "liberal" and "socialst" ARE synonymous.

Psudo wrote:

Modern conservativism, liberalism, and libertarianism are all factions that derived from classical liberalism. They have common ground on which to debate, a common history with strong connections to the American and French Revolutions. Socialism does not.

I disagree that modern Conservatism derives from classical liberalism. Modern Conservatism is a mellowed-out offshoot of totalitarianism (a secular longing for the "good ole days" of the 1950s and a religious longing for the church to guide policy). Neither of those two origins of modern conservatism have anything to do with individual freedoms. Society comes first and for a Conservative, that is his/her ideal of society.

[Psudo]

BeaverFever wrote:

Marx wrote that there could never be true socialism (or social justice) until the world rids itself of the concept of nation-states.

That's communism. Socialism is the necessary step between the world as it is and the communist ideal; a nation-state that has accepted communist principles and seeks a true, univeral communism that supersedes and eliminates the idea of nation-states.

I also accept that the idea of socialism as a big-government social form is a criticism leveled at it from classical liberals of various stripes. There are forms of socialism and communism that support minimalist or no government as their ideals. The "big government" criticism comes from analysis of the governments self-described socialists and communists have created or influenced. It's always possible to claim that socialism hasn't been tried correctly yet, just as it's always possible to doubt that it could achieve better results however it's tried. That debate will always continue.

BeaverFever wrote:

Socialists don't opposed economic freedom, in fact, they see socialism as the only true economic freedom.

They oppose what I call economic freedom, instead offering an alternative that I do not describe as freedom. I understand their view but reject it as bad reasoning, for so it seems to me. Your explaining it again doesn't change that fact.

I can debate the feasibility of socialism and communism with you, but I request you start a new thread for that. It's quite a tangent from this one, and it would inevitably hijack the thread.

JJ wrote:

liberals tend to concede that dogmatic socialism is problematic on some inherent level, and thus ultimately only have sympathy with the motivations of the early socialists. I don't know what Kagan's paper concludes, but I assume that she, like most liberal intellectuals, probably argues something to the effect that the Socialist Party was based on a number of false premises that failed to acknowledge the realities of modern American society, and thus ultimately failed as an inflectional political force due to its ideological and tactical naivete (and doubtlessly, internal struggles).

The blogger who posted that seems to agree with you, JJ. He summarizes her thesis thusly: "I think that her takeaway from her thesis was Clintonian (and Obamaian): radicals in America need to shut up, take their place at an oar, and row like hell for minor reformist victories." To use my definitions from before, he believes that Kagan is a liberal at heart, not a socialist.

His and your agreement that this is not a strong criticism of Kagan helps comfort my fears away to some extent. I stand by my distinction between liberal and socialist, but it seems to apply less to this situation than I previously imagined.

Lemmy wrote:

There are more than three "decendants" of classical liberalism and libertarians come in a variety of forms.

True. I'm simplifying somewhat for communicative expedience. It would be more accurate to say "three major descendants" and make various similar qualifications, but no matter how many such improvements to precision I add it will never be perfectly precisely accurate. Were my simplifications harmful to my overall argument? If not, I'd consider it a kindness if you didn't bother about them until they do.

Lemmy wrote:

I disagree that modern Conservatism derives from classical liberalism. Modern Conservatism is a mellowed-out offshoot of totalitarianism (a secular longing for the "good ole days" of the 1950s and a religious longing for the church to guide policy). Neither of those two origins of modern conservatism have anything to do with individual freedoms. Society comes first and for a Conservative, that is his/her ideal of society.

You, then, are speaking of a different definition of "conservative" than I am. The conservatism I recognize and with which I associate myself is one that believes in the minimum governmental intervention necessary to ensure the continued existence of the institution of government, to ensure the human rights enumerated in the Constitution, and to ensure basic law & order. Thus, the three duties of government are the military (including their role in disaster relief), the judicial system, and law enforcement respectively. Ensuring national prosperity is disputed among conservatives to be duty of government within the scope of self-preservation; maybe it is, maybe it isn't. Other duties, such as providing technology infrastructure, social welfare programs, education, and similar societal aids are considered outside of the government's scope unless proven necessary for survival of the social order or state.

Leftists criticize such conservatism for being similar to totalitarianism in that it allows private individuals or groups to become independently powerful, to be jerks if they so desire, and because it prioritizes self-preservation. The conservative (my) rebuttal is that conservatives are content to share power, that any legal enforcement of any definition of "jerk" will necessarily contradict a common sense definition of freedom, and that enough government must exist to prevent a power vacuum for nature to abhor. As BeaverFever put it, abolishing one's own state government would only cause other states to invade and conquer them; thus, self-preservation must be a priority.

Your personal criticism of conservatism, Lemmy, was that strict adherence to tradition (secular or religious) invokes parallels to totalitarianism. There are some arguments within conservative thought that are fallacious in that vein; advocacy that English be the official language of the USA, or opposition to Muslim legislators on principle, to name a few. But the only tradition is it required to revere to be a conservative in the modern USA is the American tradition of the Revolution and the Constitution. Well, and perhaps Reagan's anti-Communism.

[Lemmy]

Psudo wrote:

True. I'm simplifying somewhat for communicative expedience. It would be more accurate to say "three major descendants" and make various similar qualifications, but no matter how many such improvements to precision I add it will never be perfectly precisely accurate. Were my simplifications harmful to my overall argument? If not, I'd consider it a kindness if you didn't bother about them until they do.

It bothers me only to the extent that I feel like a man without a home, philosophically speaking. I consider myself a classic liberal. If I call myself a "liberal", I get lumped in with those modern-connotation liberals who are really socialists. If I call myself a libertarian, I get lumped in with the Randian nuts on the lunatic fringe of modern conservatism.

Psuedo wrote:

You, then, are speaking of a different definition of "conservative" than I am. The conservatism I recognize and with which I associate myself is one that believes in the minimum governmental intervention necessary to ensure the continued existence of the institution of government, to ensure the human rights enumerated in the Constitution, and to ensure basic law & order. Thus, the three duties of government are the military (including their role in disaster relief), the judicial system, and law enforcement respectively. Ensuring national prosperity is disputed among conservatives to be duty of government within the scope of self-preservation; maybe it is, maybe it isn't. Other duties, such as providing technology infrastructure, social welfare programs, education, and similar societal aids are considered outside of the government's scope unless proven necessary for survival of the social order or state.

Then I would argue that you are a more a liberal than a conservative. Conservatism's defining value, for me, is about maintainging the status quo, elistism and, again, 1950s ideals.

Psuedo wrote:

Leftists criticize such conservatism for being similar to totalitarianism in that it allows private individuals or groups to become independently powerful, to be jerks if they so desire, and because it prioritizes self-preservation. The conservative (my) rebuttal is that conservatives are content to share power, that any legal enforcement of any definition of "jerk" will necessarily contradict a common sense definition of freedom, and that enough government must exist to prevent a power vacuum for nature to abhor. As BeaverFever put it, abolishing one's own state government would only cause other states to invade and conquer them; thus, self-preservation must be a priority.

Your personal criticism of conservatism, Lemmy, was that strict adherence to tradition (secular or religious) invokes parallels to totalitarianism. There are some arguments within conservative thought that are fallacious in that vein; advocacy that English be the official language of the USA, or opposition to Muslim legislators on principle, to name a few. But the only tradition is it required to revere to be a conservative in the modern USA is the American tradition of the Revolution and the Constitution. Well, and perhaps Reagan's anti-Communism.

I can live with that. Your points are all elements of what I call "maintaining the status quo".

[Psudo]

Lummy wrote:

Psuedo wrote:

You, then, are speaking of a different definition of "conservative" than I am.

Then I would argue that you are a more a liberal than a conservative. Conservatism's defining value, for me, is about maintainging the status quo, elistism and, again, 1950s ideals.

Classical definitions. By those, sure, I'm happy to be called a liberal. A Washington/Hamilton/Lincoln liberal. But by those definitions, Ayn Rand would be a liberal, too; she sure hated the status quo.

I think the modern definitions do not speak to support or opposition to reform, but to rate of reform. Modern conservatives do not want to cling to the status quo. They want to reform, to "change with the times" as it were, but cautiously and gradually with an eye toward small government; conservative reform (in the sense of moderate or restrained reform). I call myself conservative, but I want immigration reform, energy policy reform, etc, etc. JJ calls himself conservative, but advocates for institutional changes to the offices of Governor General and Prime Minister and the nature of the Canadian Senate. Liberals (modern sense) want more dramatic, quickly adaptive change, but they are not the only ones who want change.

True defenders of the status quo are rare indeed. In today's spectrum, I think they would necessarily fall among the radical middle.

Also, a trivial bit: my name is spelled without an e.