Socialism

You are currently browsing articles tagged Socialism.

Introduction to Socialism vs Capitalism

January 21, 2010 in Capitalism by Greg | 5 comments

Part 1 of 1 in the series Socialism vs Capitalism

While this blog was being formulated, there seemed to be little debate over which type of political economy should be dominant in the United States. In fact, the economic policies of the major political candidates at that time seemed to differ from each other only by degree in terms of government intervention in the economic affairs of citizens.1 This eventually led to the series Notes on Socialism which explores that topic from a religious, social, economic and historical point of view.

Das KapitalOver time, however, it was pointed out that the U.S. economy had really undergone many changes and had passed through various stages of government intervention to what Charlotte Twight called a Participatory Fascism-type system. During this time, some have stumbled upon the site and wondered about the other side of the proverbial coin. For example, what, if anything, does capitalism have to offer?

This series of posts explores a similar set of issues related to capitalism. At first, it might not be apparent why there should be a series called Socialism vs. Capitalism. The question might be asked, Why not just discuss capitalism on its own terms? The short answer is that the term capitalist (Kapitalist) was popularized in the mid-19th century and was used frequently by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels in some of their later writings.2

Over time, the term capitalist came to refer to someone with private ownership of capital and the means of production. Interestingly, some have noted that capitalism is really “a term of disparagement coined by socialists in the mid-nineteenth century, [and] is a misnomer for ‘economic individualism’, which Adam Smith earlier called ‘the obvious and simple system of natural liberty.’”3

From a Hegelian Dialectic point of view, capitalism is the thesis in which socialism is the antithesis. Based on this perspective, these two systems are at constant odds with each other and as proponents of each system seek preeminence, new syntheses4 are created as societies “supposedly” continue to evolve.

So it is within this dialectical context that both series – Notes on Socialism and Socialism vs. Capitalism – should be considered. Capitalism simply cannot be discussed without exploring socialism and vice versa. And although today’s political discourse seems to portray choices based primarily along these two seemingly competitive political economies, perhaps there is a third way – or better yet, other ways – that should be considered and become part of public debate.

Sources:

  1. For example, see Ekelund, Robert B. and Mark Thornton. “More Awful Truths About Republicans”. 4 Sep 20008. Ludwig von Mises Institute. 19 Jan 2010.↩
  2. For example, the phrases capitalist and capitalist mode of production appear more than 2,600 times in Das Kapital. See “Capitalism”. Wikipedia. 19 Jan 2010.↩
  3. Hessen, Robert. “Capitalism”. Library of Economics and Liberty. 19 Jan 2010.↩
  4. For example, the development of Market Socialism.↩

Introduction to Notes on Socialism

January 10, 2010 in Socialism by Greg | 6 comments

Part 1 of 11 in the series Notes on Socialism

The following is an introduction to the series of notes on socialism. Its companion series is Socialism vs Capitalism and if possible, should be read together to get an understanding of these two competing political economic theories.

This series began as an investigation into the roots of modern socialism. Many trace its “origins in the French Revolution of 1789 and the changes brought about by the Industrial Revolution.”1 In fact, the term “socialism” is often “attributed to Pierre Leroux in 1834, who called socialism ‘the doctrine which would not give up any of the principles of Liberty, Equality, Fraternity of the French Revolution of 1789.’”2

The Law of Consecration and Socialism Compared

Zion’s Cooperative Mercantile Institution From a religious perspective, socialism is of interest to members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints because it bears some similarities with various attempts by the Church to implement the “law of consecration”. For example,

The Lord revealed several purposes for the law of consecration: to bring the Church to stand independent of all other institutions (D&C 78:14); to strengthen Zion, adorning her in beautiful garments, as a bride prepared and worthy of the bridegroom (D&C 33:17; 58:11; 65:3; 82:14, 18; etc.); and to prepare the Saints for a place in the Celestial Kingdom (D&C 78:7).

Commenting on this subject, President John Taylor stated that consecration is a celestial law and, when observed, its adherents become a celestial people (JD 17:177-81). Thus, men and women today can become like as those of Enoch’s day, “of one heart and one mind,…with no poor among them” (Moses 7:18). Orson Pratt, an early apostle, observed that if the Lord’s people aspire to the Celestial Kingdom, they must begin to learn the order of life that is there (JD 2:102-103).3

Since Zion designates both a place of gathering4 and an ideal society where “the pure in heart” live in harmony5, it bears many resemblances to utopian societies – real and imagined – of the past.6

Continuing, John A. Widtsoe, an apostle, explained how the law of consecration was implemented in the early Church:

Introduction to Notes on Socialism »»

  1. “History of Socialism”. Wikipedia. 9 Jan 2009.↩
  2. “Socialism”. Wikipedia. 9 Jan 2009.↩
  3. Hirschi, Frank W. “Law of Consecration”. 1992. Encyclopedia of Mormonism. 9 Jan 2009.↩
  4. See the post the Redemption of Zion.↩
  5. Sorensen, A. Don. “Zion”. 1992. Encyclopedia of Mormonism. 9 Jan 2009.↩
  6. Nibley, Hugh W. “The Utopians.” Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship. 9 Jan 2009.↩

Progressive Education in America

August 13, 2009 in Education by Greg | No comments

This post is a follow-up to Boyd K. Packer on Humanism in Education. In 1953, Frederick F. DeArmond traced the history of progressive education in America to John Dewey and a dedicated group of Columbia University teachers:

John Dewey The progressive education movement in America began with the philosopher John Dewey. Dewey and his followers believed that education should be tied more closely to the business of living, and that the schoolroom should be as nearly as possible society in miniature. They held that the natural impulses of children could be given more rein; a child develops best, they claimed, if he tastes a great deal of victory and very little of defeat.

From this beginning there grew up at Teachers College, Columbia University, a small group called the “Frontier Thinkers,” men dedicated to the Dewey doctrine. Conspicuous names in the group were William Heard Kilpatrick, George S. Counts, Goodwin Watson, Jesse Newlon, Harold Rugg, and George W. Hartmann. They were fervent disciples of reform, and their influence was profound.

The reforms they advocated proved heady ideas for inexperienced or inept teachers, and in the hands of school administrators they could all too easily be carried to unwise and perverted extremes. That, in fact, is just what happened. It was John Dewey’s misfortune that the teaching profession followed his innovations not wisely but too well.1

Read the rest of this entry »

  1. DeArmond, Frederick F. “Democracy in the School Room”. 12 Aug 2009. Ludwig von Mises Institute. 13 Aug 2009.↩

Arlen Specter at Health Care Town Hall

August 11, 2009 in Health Care by Greg | 27 comments

Suggesting that “virtually everyone [is] a collectivist when it comes to heath care” reform1, here is an exchange between former Republican now Democrat Senator Arlen Specter and a woman at a recent town hall meeting:

Arlen Specter at Health Care Town Hall meeting One woman prompted a standing ovation by telling Specter: “I don’t believe this is just health care. This is about the systematic dismantling of this country. … I don’t want this country turning into Russia, turning into a socialized country. What are you going to do to restore this country back to what our founders created, according to the Constitution?”

Specter responded by noting his support for the Constitution as a past chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee on issues such as warrantless wiretaps.

“When you ask me to defend the Constitution, that’s what I’ve been doing,” Specter said.

Specter said that overhauling the health care system is about America taking care of all of its people.

“In our social contract, we have provisions that see to it that you take care of people who need some help,” he said.2

There’s that inauspicious phrase “social contract” used to describe the agreement between the rulers and those they rule written about in the post on Collectivism.

Arlen Specter at Health Care Town Hall »»

  1. See Health Care Collectivists.↩
  2. “Specter Faces Hostile Audience at Health Care Forum”. CNN. 11 August 2009.↩

Collectivism

August 7, 2009 in Fascism by Greg | 2 comments

A comment to the post Health Care Collectivists reminded me that the rhetoric of collectivism permeates today’s political discourse and that as long as a collectivist solution isn’t too “extreme”, some believe that individual rights can be maintained. While this certainly seems like a reasonable approach, there are a number of problems with this philosophy besides the ever present danger of a populace giving heed to the seductive call of social “gradualists.”1

History of Collectivism

Tiananmen Square The Encyclopedia Britannica traces the modern history of collectivist ideas to Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s Du contrat social – or “social contract” – of 1762.2 In theory, this was an actual or hypothetical compact, or agreement, between those who were ruled and their rulers, defining the rights and duties of each.

In the 19th century, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel was a prominent advocate of these ideals and believed that the state “has supreme right against the individual, whose supreme duty is to be a member of the State.”3 In fact, as a statist Hegel believed that submission to the state is the “highest embodiment of social morality.”

Drawing upon Rousseau and Hegel’s work, Karl Marx advocated a collectivist approach to organizing society. Moyra Grant wrote:

Collectivism is sometimes contrasted with both individualism and with statism to mean the advocacy of voluntary, cooperative and non-coercive groups and associations pursuing a common purpose; but is more commonly understood to include statist theories and systems such as fascism and Stalinism. . . .4

More broadly, however, collectivism embraces any philosophy which perceives any group, society or state as more important than the individual.5

Collectivism »»

  1. See Proposition 8, Mormons, and the New Statesman.↩
  2. “Collectivism”. Encyclopedia Britannica. 6 August 2009.↩
  3. See Hegelian Dialectic.↩
  4. This post uses this more common definition of collectivism and presupposes familiarity with political collectivism.↩
  5. Grant, Moyra. Key Ideas in Politics. Cheltenham, Gloucestershire, United Kingdom: Nelson Thornes, 2003. 19-20. Google Book Search. Retrieved 6 August 2009.↩

« Older entries