Saturday, May 13
Self-determination
INDIVIDUALISM, SOCIALISM
I think I've found an important theme running through most of these blogs, and a vital point in of itself. I've always held that socialism is not one, dogmatic movement that seeks to establish a template for humanity on each of us. In fact, the more I think about it, the more I realise that it's quite the opposite.
Socialism is an enabler. What do I mean by that? I mean that it's far easier for things to get done in socialism. Let's take one issue: pornography. Some socialists are in favour, some are against. I'm of the latter persuasion - but I think socialism would be better for both groups. If pornography is legal under socialism, there would be no question of exploitation: those who work in the industry would have the final say in how they are treated - that's in addition to all the usual 'above board' arguments holding. Now, if it weren't legal, it would be pretty easy to stop. Since all industry is public industry, you simply have a policy of society not paying people for pornography. With a properly set-up economy, you can demolish a black market quite efficiently. All that remains for either side is to convince the public. Under current society, pornography will thrive whatever the public view, so will a lot of exploitation and other associated social ills.
Same thing with, I don't know, green issues. Yes, you can have ecotaxes and ecoboni under capitalism, but that's really only tweaking where it shows the most. It's only under socialism that you can get things done. That's real democracy: where the power to do things is in the hands of the people.
But it works on another level, too. I admit, I've not spoken so much about this, but I'd always considered it obvious. In retrospect, perhaps it isn't. Socialism is an enabler - on a personal level. With socialism, I have the right not only to economic justice and the right to receive fair compensation for my contribution to society, but I also have the right to choose what I contribute and how. Each of us have a say in our working environment. Each of us can live our life however we like (insofar as we do not harm others). And above all, each of us has the same rights on these matters.
I think the criticism comes from a misinterpretation of egalitarian ideals. People read 'socialism treats everyone as identical', to which I respond 'rubbish'. Socialism says everyone should be treated as equals, not as clones. There's a big difference. Socialism would recognise that we all have different qualities, and would encourage each of us to do what we do best. If you haven't the steady hand to be a surgeon, fine - we won't treat you as less of a person because of it. Some people do, and good for them (good for us too, if we're in need of it). Socialism doesn't force people to be surgeons or cleaners or nurses or consultants... socialism merely extends to us any opportunity we are willing and able to take.
Actually, though, that's a flaw of capitalist theory. Ever heard (or made) the argument that 'anyone can become a CEO/millionaire/investment banker', that it's the fault of the poor for being poor, that everyone has the same opportunities? Sounds a nice idea, doesn't it? But it makes one huge, fantastic assumption, that so many people miss: it expects us all to be identical. We're not all business wizards. We don't all have the right sort of mind (never mind the capital) to get 300% returns on the investment. It's not fair unless we're all identical.
Perhaps you've not made that argument. But perhaps you're thinking to yourself 'well, life's not fair'. And you'd be right, it isn't fair. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't try to make it a bit fairer.
INDIVIDUALISM, SOCIALISM
I think I've found an important theme running through most of these blogs, and a vital point in of itself. I've always held that socialism is not one, dogmatic movement that seeks to establish a template for humanity on each of us. In fact, the more I think about it, the more I realise that it's quite the opposite.
Socialism is an enabler. What do I mean by that? I mean that it's far easier for things to get done in socialism. Let's take one issue: pornography. Some socialists are in favour, some are against. I'm of the latter persuasion - but I think socialism would be better for both groups. If pornography is legal under socialism, there would be no question of exploitation: those who work in the industry would have the final say in how they are treated - that's in addition to all the usual 'above board' arguments holding. Now, if it weren't legal, it would be pretty easy to stop. Since all industry is public industry, you simply have a policy of society not paying people for pornography. With a properly set-up economy, you can demolish a black market quite efficiently. All that remains for either side is to convince the public. Under current society, pornography will thrive whatever the public view, so will a lot of exploitation and other associated social ills.
Same thing with, I don't know, green issues. Yes, you can have ecotaxes and ecoboni under capitalism, but that's really only tweaking where it shows the most. It's only under socialism that you can get things done. That's real democracy: where the power to do things is in the hands of the people.
But it works on another level, too. I admit, I've not spoken so much about this, but I'd always considered it obvious. In retrospect, perhaps it isn't. Socialism is an enabler - on a personal level. With socialism, I have the right not only to economic justice and the right to receive fair compensation for my contribution to society, but I also have the right to choose what I contribute and how. Each of us have a say in our working environment. Each of us can live our life however we like (insofar as we do not harm others). And above all, each of us has the same rights on these matters.
I think the criticism comes from a misinterpretation of egalitarian ideals. People read 'socialism treats everyone as identical', to which I respond 'rubbish'. Socialism says everyone should be treated as equals, not as clones. There's a big difference. Socialism would recognise that we all have different qualities, and would encourage each of us to do what we do best. If you haven't the steady hand to be a surgeon, fine - we won't treat you as less of a person because of it. Some people do, and good for them (good for us too, if we're in need of it). Socialism doesn't force people to be surgeons or cleaners or nurses or consultants... socialism merely extends to us any opportunity we are willing and able to take.
Actually, though, that's a flaw of capitalist theory. Ever heard (or made) the argument that 'anyone can become a CEO/millionaire/investment banker', that it's the fault of the poor for being poor, that everyone has the same opportunities? Sounds a nice idea, doesn't it? But it makes one huge, fantastic assumption, that so many people miss: it expects us all to be identical. We're not all business wizards. We don't all have the right sort of mind (never mind the capital) to get 300% returns on the investment. It's not fair unless we're all identical.
Perhaps you've not made that argument. But perhaps you're thinking to yourself 'well, life's not fair'. And you'd be right, it isn't fair. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't try to make it a bit fairer.
# posted by Phugebrins @ 16:13 
