Socialism and "fairness"

[Daxx]

Interesting. I think I've drifted a few points further left than since I last took the test. Then again, I tend to fluctuate on these tests anyway, so a few points here and there probably don't mean a lot. As for the questions - yeah, they aren't perfect, since they leave a lot for personal interpretation, but previous use seems to show that it's reasonably accurate.

[Evil Hamster]

I'll get back to the other points brought up earlier in a bit. for now:

= ( such poor understanding of the basics.  If that line evil drew was accurate (even just for the parties mentioned) politics would be fundamentally one dimensional.  It's at least two dimensional.  I hope this helps.

Yes it was a very simplified drawing. Nothing in life is really that easy, not even 2 dimensions can really describe everything:

On this graph below (not the one in the video).  The bottom part of the square can be socialist, where any point on the bottom line is socialism taken to extreme.  The left part of the square is personal control, such as banning books, restricting non-economical activites, with any point on the left-most line being the extreme.  The bottom left corner is communism (where the two extremes intersect) and the top right corner is anarchy.

Actually you have your axes crossed in your explanation.

The left side of the graph represents less economic freedom/more socialism. Moving to the right represents increasing economic freedom/capitalism/free markets.

The bottom part of the graph is least personal freedom/tyranny. Moving up represents greater personal freedom/liberty.

In the US conservatives are up towards the top-right while liberals are more to the bottom left.

[Evil Hamster]

Just curious here- To me, liberalism means state control of our lives therefore very close to statism while conservatism means small, limited government and is therefore closer to anarchy. So how can you be between liberalism and anarchy without being close to conservatism?

   Left                                                                       Right     
<-----|------------------|----------------------|-------------------|----->
    Statism        Liberalism             Conservatism        Anarchy

This is a view of politics very endemic to the US. Elsewhere in the world Liberalism is associated with economic and social freedoms, whilst conservatism is associated with authoritarianism (though doesn't say much about economic freedoms). Have you seen this website? I find it very useful as a measure of political scale.

http://www.politicalcompass.org/

On a side note, this is becoming difficult to keep track of in two threads, can we have one locked? It seems to be the exact same conversation being repeated.

Yes, I know. The rest of the world tends to get everything backwards. They even drive on the wrong side of the road! (J/K  )

Seriously though. I am aware of the difference. In the US, liberal means the government has freedom to do whatever it wants while conservative means follow the constitutional principles of economic and personal freedom. The only way I can figure it out is in general- conservatism means follow your countries founding principles and liberal means change them. So if you live in a tyrannical country, conservative means keep up the tyranny, a free country conservative means keep your freedoms. I'm sure that definition doesn't exactly fit either- nothing in politics is as simple as that!

[Evil Hamster]

You're wrong, but going over the bit I wrote before the graph I did mix it up.  Whatever I said about socialism and bottom should have been socialism and left.  Whatever I said about personal control and left, should have been personal control and bottom.

I think I need to make it clear so let's forget the graph for now.  There are 4 possible combinations and consider Government involvement and/or control in the following two matters.

Personal - Economic
(1) Lots - lots.
(2) Lots - limited.
(3) limited - lots.
(4) limited - limited.

First notice that, depending on exactly how much government involvement and control, both (1) and (2) Can be socialist. (Weather or not U.S. democrats fit here or not is a subjective matter)

Conservatives (republicans) want lot's of government involvement and control in personal lives.  Almost entirely for religious reasons (stem cell research, gay marriage), on what non-economic-things can and can't be done regardless of if it hurts anyone or not (pornography).  They also want limited government involvement in business and the economy (Lower tax for big companies, reduce the number of state-funded services).  This puts conservatives in the Lots - limited (2) category on every website and text book you can find.  (top left)

Liberals (democrats) want limited involvement and control in personal lives (allow gay marriage, allow stem cell research, allow pornography).  They also want lots of government involvement in business and the economy (tax the rich, add some state-funded services to fix problems).  This puts Liberals in the limited - lots (3) category.

Statist (communist (North Korea)) governments have lots of involvement in personal lives (no free speech against dear leader).  They also have lots of involvement in business (they own all the business, there are no private businesses except for foreign-owned ones).  This puts Statism in the lots - lots (1) category.

Libertarians want limited government in personal lives (gays, abortions, marijuana legalized).  They also want limited government in business (low taxes, minimum government agencies, no welfare, no public schools).  They fit the limited - limited (4) category.

This is how all the textbooks and all the websites have it because it's how it is.  IMO a conservative is a libertarian who takes his religion way too seriously and thinks his/her desire for government involvement in personal lives isn't what it is because it's warranted in his/her eyes by their private unprovable/unfalsifiable beliefs.

Also don't confuse liberals and libertarians.  liberal = Bill Clinton, libertarian = Ron Paul (who ran as a conservative 2008 because of his desire for limited economic involvement in business, but lost the conservative vote because conservatives didn't like his desire for limited government in personal affairs.)

Yes, I said your explanations were correct, just the axes were crossed.

As for the rest...

You are perpetrating the myth imposed by the liberal media in this country.

First: Conservative =/= Republican

Bush was NOT conservative, he was far more liberal. The reason conservatives voted for him was simply because he was the lesser of two evils. Gore and Kerry were scary. In the last election- the rebublican candidate Mccain was even more liberal than Bush, and after 8 years of liberal republicanism in the white house, most conservatives simply didn't bother to vote. Did you know the last "conservative" to be on the presidential ballot- Reagan- got more popular votes than Obama even though the countrys population was about 50 million less than it was last year?

Some of the issues you mentioned:

Stem cells-
Conservative: NOT a government function. Keep the government out of it. If a person or company wants to reserach then fine.
Liberal: Its good for everybody so tax everybody and have the government fund it regardless of any of the tax-payers personal opinions or objections.

Homosexuality-
Conservative: You have the right to pursue happiness. If that's what you want to do then fine. Keep the government out of our bedrooms.
Liberal: Use the force of government to impose their view of homosexuality on everybody regardless of their personal opinions. Teach children in schools it's OK regardless of their parental or religious views.
[gay marriage is a whole other issue I don't even want to start in this thread]

Business/economy-
I would agree mostly with what you said except that both democrats and republicans (not conservatives) take huge campaign contributions from big companies and pass laws to protect corporate profits and make it harder for small business to compete.

Your definition of conservative is way off from what most conservatives believe. Yes there are some loud hyper-religious people who claim to be conservative but they aren't in the respect they try to use government to impose their views on people's lives. That's like saying Jesse Jackson represents ALL african americans.

Conservative means if the Constitution does not specifically give a certain power to the government then that power belongs to the people or the individual states.
Liberal means re-define words used in the Constitution to make them mean whatever they want at any particular time, interpret it freely to give power to the government to regulate, tax and otherwise interfere in our lives.

I haven't read the rest of the posts after this, so I don't know the explanations... but your colorful graph stood out showing Obama, Dodd, etc as right wingers  I LOLed

Edit: I took the test too.



I have a feeling some of the questions are inherently biased, but IIWII

[Uzra]

= ( such poor understanding of the basics.  If that line evil drew was accurate (even just for the parties mentioned) politics would be fundamentally one dimensional.  It's at least two dimensional.  I hope this helps.


On this graph below (not the one in the video).  The bottom part of the square can be socialist, where any point on the bottom line is socialism taken to extreme.  The left part of the square is personal control, such as banning books, restricting non-economical activites, with any point on the left-most line being the extreme.  The bottom left corner is communism (where the two extremes intersect) and the top right corner is anarchy.



In the video the graph is rotated 45 degrees.

&feature=channel_page

[Uzra]

I find this helps a lot.  You can actually see that the 'left right' in the states is currently the diagonal line.  Interesting to me that McCain was actually the left-most candidate in the republican primaries and he won. While Mike Gravel was actually further right than McCain was.  One other point is where they have Ron Paul being so high up instead of the bottom right corner (where he claims to be).  The reason for this, imo, is because when they ask him about personal freedom, such as pornography and gay marriage, he doesn't take any side at all.  He just dodges the question of 'what ought to, or ought not to, be the law' by saying 'constitution says states decide these matters'.  I would be really surprised that conservatives didn't vote more for Ron Paul as he's the right-most candidate except that I can remember 'news' chooses, as biassedly as they can, who gets coverage and who doesn't and I also remember that conservative republicans (the right-wing in the states) don't just want fiscal conservation and no gay-marriage in their state, they want no-gay-marriage in all states (any less won't do) and Ron Paul flat out said 'I won't legislate peoples personal lives, I'll let the states decide if they want that or not'. (I'm not a ron paul fan, but he'd have been a lot better than everyone higher up than he is).



This one is of canada the same year.  I voted New democratic party.

[Uzra]

That's an excellent summary, uzra. The link I posted has more details and some interesting graphs which illustrate how this works in real life, including for example distribution of US states by their congressmen, historical world leaders, various countries, and so forth.

Very good link. 

I took the test (and I think everyone ought to) and I got this. I thought I would be a lot closer to the right hand side.  But closer the the bottom than the right hand side.  Some questions were a little illogical.  I'm talking about the ones that say 'some'.  Answer them as if they say 'all' because logically nothing can be deduced from 'some criminals can not be rehabilitated' as far as whether or not we ought to try. (one of many examples).

[/img]

[Uzra]

Actually you have your axes crossed in your explanation.

The axes are crossed in the worded explanation yes >.<

The left side of the graph represents less economic freedom/more socialism. Moving to the right represents increasing economic freedom/capitalism/free markets.

The bottom part of the graph is least personal freedom/tyranny. Moving up represents greater personal freedom/liberty.

Yes, those are the axis I, and the video, have.

In the US conservatives are up towards the top-right while liberals are more to the bottom left.

You're wrong, but going over the bit I wrote before the graph I did mix it up.  Whatever I said about socialism and bottom should have been socialism and left.  Whatever I said about personal control and left, should have been personal control and bottom.

I think I need to make it clear so let's forget the graph for now.  There are 4 possible combinations and consider Government involvement and/or control in the following two matters.

Personal - Economic
(1) Lots - lots.
(2) Lots - limited.
(3) limited - lots.
(4) limited - limited.

First notice that, depending on exactly how much government involvement and control, both (1) and (2) Can be socialist. (Weather or not U.S. democrats fit here or not is a subjective matter)

Conservatives (republicans) want lot's of government involvement and control in personal lives.  Almost entirely for religious reasons (stem cell research, gay marriage), on what non-economic-things can and can't be done regardless of if it hurts anyone or not (pornography).  They also want limited government involvement in business and the economy (Lower tax for big companies, reduce the number of state-funded services).  This puts conservatives in the Lots - limited (2) category on every website and text book you can find.  (top left)

Liberals (democrats) want limited involvement and control in personal lives (allow gay marriage, allow stem cell research, allow pornography).  They also want lots of government involvement in business and the economy (tax the rich, add some state-funded services to fix problems).  This puts Liberals in the limited - lots (3) category.

Statist (communist (North Korea)) governments have lots of involvement in personal lives (no free speech against dear leader).  They also have lots of involvement in business (they own all the business, there are no private businesses except for foreign-owned ones).  This puts Statism in the lots - lots (1) category.

Libertarians want limited government in personal lives (gays, abortions, marijuana legalized).  They also want limited government in business (low taxes, minimum government agencies, no welfare, no public schools).  They fit the limited - limited (4) category.

This is how all the textbooks and all the websites have it because it's how it is.  IMO a conservative is a libertarian who takes his religion way too seriously and thinks his/her desire for government involvement in personal lives isn't what it is because it's warranted in his/her eyes by their private unprovable/unfalsifiable beliefs.

Also don't confuse liberals and libertarians.  liberal = Bill Clinton, libertarian = Ron Paul (who ran as a conservative 2008 because of his desire for limited economic involvement in business, but lost the conservative vote because conservatives didn't like his desire for limited government in personal affairs.)

[Belthus]

I think that in order to understand capitalism, you have to know what capital is and why it's important.

Capital is one of the factors of production (natural resources, labor, capital, and technology). Capital is a product that is made, not to be consumed for its own sake, but to help with further production. A spear is a tribal hunter's capital. A plow is a farmer's capital. A fisherman's boat and net are his capital.

At lower levels of technology and economic development, capital is within reach of a single person doing the activity. The hunter can make a spear. The farmer can make a plow. And so on. Even if they don't make the capital themselves, they can easily trade for it from someone else. So labor, resources, and capital are all together. The hunter doesn't provide just the labor. He makes or buys the capital (spear). And the resources - land and animals - are abundant in nature, as long as human population is sparse, and there isn't overhunting.

As economies develop, a lot of capital becomes out of reach for a single person. How many people can buy a factory? A few wealthy people can. Or a lot of investors pooling their money can. However, the factory still needs labor, so people work for a wage.

What has happened over time is that the typical person is no longer in control of all the factors of his/her productive activity. Investors own the capital. Workers provide the labor. Land owners own the land needed to build the factory, or mine the metal, or harvest the wood.

All these people representing different factors of production come together in the marketplace and bargain to divide up what is produced. However, they usually aren't in positions of equal strength. More often than not, capital is dominant. Thus, capital often sets the terms, and workers have to accept them or remain unemployed.

In the past, workers' pay and working conditions were so bad as to incite a great deal of social unrest, organizing into unions, etc. When capital can control its appetite and give workers a good deal, it can prosper in the long term as well as the short term. However, capital often can't do that.

[Belthus]

Interesting Rasmussen poll from April (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/april_2009/just_53_say_capitalism_better_than_socialism):

Only 53% of American adults believe capitalism is better than socialism.

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that 20% disagree and say socialism is better. Twenty-seven percent (27%) are not sure which is better.

Adults under 30 are essentially evenly divided: 37% prefer capitalism, 33% socialism, and 30% are undecided. Thirty-somethings are a bit more supportive of the free-enterprise approach with 49% for capitalism and 26% for socialism. Adults over 40 strongly favor capitalism, and just 13% of those older Americans believe socialism is better.

Investors by a 5-to-1 margin choose capitalism. As for those who do not invest, 40% say capitalism is better while 25% prefer socialism.

There is a partisan gap as well. Republicans - by an 11-to-1 margin - favor capitalism. Democrats are much more closely divided: Just 39% say capitalism is better while 30% prefer socialism. As for those not affiliated with either major political party, 48% say capitalism is best, and 21% opt for socialism.

The question posed by Rasmussen Reports did not define either capitalism or socialism.

That last sentence is important. The question is a thermometer of the emotion associated with the two words. What people think of particular ideas or policies is a separate issue.

[Belthus]

i find it interesting that you refer to capital as a person, im not insinuating anything just commenting. anyway, thats what i was saying in a more broad sense.

It was shorthand. I could have said "capitalists" or "investors" or whatever. But it's not uncommon for people to say "capital" and "labor" to refer to the people who fill those economic functions when they are specialized.

[sillyking14]

i believe that many ideological problems are caused by people trying to lump very broadband concepts into specific "camps." for example, people are saying that conservatism MEANS "x" and socialism "MEANS" "y." the problem with this is that there is great diversity in opinion even among a group of friends that has grown up together. although these groups tend to have similar beliefs not everyone will believe exactly the same thisg. and when you start to talk about more inflammatory (controversial?) issues such as politics opinions tend to be even more varied. therefore i believe that many of todays arguments and debates are cause by these "camps" that people are put into. someone can say that they are "conservative" and as a result, people will assume things about that persons beliefs.

another way in which these problems are caused is when people try to darken grey areas. now i believe that most of you would agree that there are somethings that are just wrong. I.E. walking into the streets with a gun, choosing a person at random and shooting them 6 times in the head would be WRONG. however does that mean that killing a person is wrong? simply killing is a very gray area simply because it is so general. I would tend towards the belief that the morality of an act tends to be in motivation. for example, if you get attacked and in an attempt to defend yourself you hit your attacker in the nose and cause that persons nose bone to shatter and shoot into his brain killing him then you have just killed the person. but your motivation was self-defense. however if you behave in a specific way in order to provoke an attack on you and the exact same thing happens, then your motivation for killing is not self-defense, it is "i felt like it" or "i wanted to" and this would be wrong. of course the person that attacked you would be in the wrong as well but that doesn't abdicate your own guilt.

the point is that in so many "moral" issues there are certain situations in which an action is right, another situations in which that action is wrong. but when people confuse the situations (intentionally or accidentally) problems and miscommuntications arise.

the apex of this argument is that law makers (theoretically) have to capture these grey areas and try to turn them into a working justice system. some lawmakers understand this problem and maliciously try to "fix" the laws according ot their own ideals. while others are more worried about protecting peoples rights. (which is probably why so many people believe that criminals have more rights than their victims). i don't think that its in mans capacity to fully be able to think of all situations and to make laws that perfectly correspond with the moral law (there are just far too many variables).

i know that this may not be on topic per se but i believe that it does contribute to the discussion

i would also like to close with my own definitions of some words brought up (these definitions are based on if people are perfect, which they aren't)

Fairness: when a situation is judged based on the motivations of the involved parties, and on what  actually happened, and is judged independently of any previous "similar" situations
socialism: a societal system in which one groups controls all material possessions in that society and decides the best way to doll said possessions out.
communism: a societal system in which all people own all things and share with each other based on need and surplus
capitalism: a societal system in which a single material possession is used as a common trade item

these definitions are (i feel) as unbiased as i could make them and i would like to point out that none of the three social system are any better than any others, all of them have their own merits and all have room for corruption, the reason for any to fail is either widespread poverty or human intervention.