[Syph]

Hey all,

I was thinking for a while after a heated political discussion and reducing socialism to its simplest components. I have come to the conclusion that the following truths provide an intellectual case for socialism. However, when I do this the ghost of Hume and the is/ought problem undermine my theory.

The truths (can be combined or separated):
First, the genetic argument:

• You do not choose your genes.
• Everybody has different gene expression.
• Hence, everybody has different abilities derived from luck.

Secondly, the environmental argument:

• You do not choose your circumstance of birth.
• Nobody has identical environments.
• Hence, everybody has different abilities derived from luck.

Socialism, from my understanding, seeks to balance luck in a rational way by depriving those who are successful of a small part of their wealth and redistributing it to those who are deprived of success. This helps achieve a minimum standard of living that is morally acceptable.

Have I got close to the pure essence of socialism (perhaps not as Marx saw it, but my personal representation) or is there further to be added or is it a load of rubbish?

[Potemkin]

Your approach is moralistic rather than rationalistic. It might therefore serve as an intellectual justification for utopian socialism or for some form of Fabianism, but Marxism does not justify itself on moralistic grounds or by appealing to 'fairness'.

[Syph]

Your approach is moralistic rather than rationalistic. It might therefore serve as an intellectual justification for utopian socialism or for some form of Fabianism, but Marxism does not justify itself on moralistic grounds or by appealing to 'fairness'.

My argument contains truths that are not moralistic at all. The morality invades at the intervention of socialism to moderate chance. I personally don't have time for utopianism, I believe there is a place in society for a regulated market that co-exists with state owned entities that ensure the common man has an acceptable standard of living.

I could be described as a Fabian, but only loosely as I hate the Labour party in its current form and all the liberal ideology that messed everything up.

What is a more rationalistic foundation for marxism/socialism?

[Vera Politica]

What is a more rationalistic foundation for marxism/socialism?

Social science. Marxism, unlike liberalism and other liberal socialist counterparts, does not begin from abstracted principles to real individuals and society. The opposite is true; Marxism starts with real individuals, real institutions and, using methods common to the social sciences, abstracts to general principles. Marxism is much more interested in how society works rather than how it should work. Despite common misconceptions, Marxism is not a normative discourse.

[Syph]

Social science. Marxism, unlike liberalism and other liberal socialist counterparts, does not begin from abstracted principles to real individuals and society. The opposite is true; Marxism starts with real individuals, real institutions and, using methods common to the social sciences, abstracts to general principles. Marxism is much more interested in how society works rather than how it should work. Despite common misconceptions, Marxism is not a normative discourse.

Have you got any recommended reading on the subject? I could read Marx but I find his rants rather difficult to read.

[Potemkin]

I could read Marx but I find his rants rather difficult to read.

Marx almost never rants. Even the Communist Manifesto, perhaps his most tendentious work, is measured and well-reasoned.

[Ombrageux]

Equality of opportunity and a minimum standard of living for all are part of the moral appeal not only of socialism but of the welfare state in general (e.g., in theories of Christian/social democracy). This is not the only reason however, true socialists - who for a society other than capitalism - tend to have many, many more reasons for their views.

[Phred]

...Marxism does not justify itself on moralistic grounds or by appealing to 'fairness'.

Since it quite clearly cannot justify itself on economic grounds either (and don't even think of going anywhere near the word "efficiency"), upon just what grounds do Marxists justify their advocacy of Socialist systems?



Phred

[Syph]

Since it quite clearly cannot justify itself on economic grounds either...

I've got news for you, neither does libertarianism. The case of history is on the side of Keynes, deviation from his theories have caused the current crisis we are facing and most of the previous crises. New Zealand was devastated by Rogernomics, so what further proof do you need that libertarianism is economically illiterate.

(and don't even think of going anywhere near the word "efficiency")

Keep the wool over your eyes if you want, but capitalism has proved itself to be flawed. There is so much waste in capitalism its disgusting. They are so bad at managing their money in efficient ways that wages have stayed static. They spend less on their employees to boost their profits and keep the board happy. In fact, the public sector has an excellent record of efficiency in the UK. Especially regarding the now privatised rail which costs triple now than it did then...

[Negotiator]

John Maynard Keynes has nothing to do with the current crisis. I am always baffled when people claim that. Keynes has introduced some new views into economics which have all been gleefully ignored since about the 1970s, when stagflation happened, something that cannot occur in simplistic interpretations of Keynes theories.

Instead, current economics are mainly focussed on Milton Friedman, a guy who based his work on Friedrich Hayek, and who did much of the basic papers on what would later be called Monetarism.