The Muddle in the middle ground of politics - what do you call someone like myself?

[mintogrubb.livejournal.com]

I used to feel once, that there were two basic stances in politics.

Either you believed that profits were all important - you wanted a Free Market, a small State with little or no taxation and regulations, corporations that were liable only to the shareholders and anything that was not Private enterprise was done by charitable concerns - and such people were Monetarists:

Or you believed that human dignity and human rights were the things to look after. You wanted a Welfare State. Sure, there would be high taxation to pay for it, but this was the thing to do. you wanted the market to be regulated, and for the State to supply education , housing and just about everything. you may even have felt that the State should have owned and run whole industries - it was the only way to create the revenue needed to fund this noble enterprise. naturally, even if the State did not own industry, it had the right to impose strict controls on the ' Free Market". And if that was your view - that people , not profit , was your main concern - well you were a Socialist.

People or profits - which one did you care about? It was simple as that.

Yet coming here, sounding off and listening to what came back from ' across the aisle', so to speak, I'm being forced to reconsider. It does not seem that simple any more.

Ok, there are those who want to have a revolution - violently overrthrow the existing order and abolish private property. They are Communists and you don't see many of 'em about these days.

Coming down a bit more are your Classical Socialists. No, we don't want a Revolution, we just want to vote in a regime that will nationalise lots of industries, and use the profits from that and the taxes on everything else to have a Welfare State.

And then, there are folks like me who think that nationalisation Just Didn't Work - people like me want the State to leave the business people in charge of running things, but tell them how to do it and what we want them to do.

Go beyond this, and you are back with the Monetarists again.

But what are people of my ideology properly called?
We don't believe in armed revolution and total abolition of private enterprise. So, we are not Communists.

We don't even believe in nationalising industry as a way ahead - we just want to see an Open Regulated Market. the Old Style, Keir Hardy and Hugh Gaitskill era Socialists would not have settled for that.

So, who are the people who do espouse this sort of thinking - apart from me, that is?
A very diverse bunch. John Major and James Prior - maybe even the likes of james cameron of Today would call themselves "One Nation Tories" . "We are Conservatives", they would argue " But our Conservatism has its roots in this Enlightened Self Interest that Minto Grubb keeps on about." I don't hear them use that expression of course , but Cameron has in fact talked about doing thing "in the National Interest" - hence the expression 'One Nation Toryism' - 'we are all in this together and should work for the common good' is their feeling, rather than just serve the interests of one social class.

And yes, Nick Clegg sings the same tune - and he is a Liberal( with a big L and a small one too!)
And the Labour Party these days is 'Business Freindly' - it welcomes investment and business ties, tries to distance itself from the trade Unions. in fact some ( including me ) accuse them of betraying their Socialist principles to make themselves electable again.

But before we go any further, lets get one thing straight. Nobody *really* believes in "A Free Market". You want to know what a 'free market' really means? It means that if someone tried to sell child pornography, that nothing and nobody would stop them. I can't see that happening, can you? If a small child could walk into a shop with a couple of quid or a few dollars and say "one bar of chocolate and some crack cocaine, please" - then you can say you have a free market. But nobody - not even Margaret Thatcher or Sarah Palin is going to allow minors to buy a Jack Daniels over the counter, are they - never mind crack cocaine! No- the USA and the UK do not have 'free markets'. Nor should they have them. Ok, you may want to change the law on drugs use, you may want the freedom for adults to buy and use porn if they wish- but only for those of legal age, right? Nobody in their right minds is going to advocate kids doing drugs or being employed in the porn industry. At least I hope not. So let's start calling it an Open Market, but not a Free one, huh?

Yeah - I want a Regulated Open Market. A government that makes rules in the National Interest - not just the Landed Interest or the capital interest.
I want State sponsored health care, and education. But so did Otto von Bismark.
Is this hybridised 'capitalist system with a welfare state infrastructure' something that we can call 'neo-Socialism'? Or 'Liberalism' ? maybe 'One Nation Conservatism'? Or do we just call it 'Green Politics? At least we can then say that we are coming away from the things that most people dislike about Socialism. Or are we?
What say you?
Never mind the rightness or wrongness of it as a working model for society - how would it be correctly defined?

My thanks to those 'across the aisle' - chiefly badlydrawnjeff, mrbogey and gunslinger, who have made several informative and challenging observations in my last OP. Mention should also go to those who came at it from an anti-monetarist position, too -
underlankens, geezer_also and manhout especially. I look forward to hearing what you all have to say on this one.

Comments

[a-new-machine.livejournal.com]

Sounds pretty close to how the American Democratic party stands (in principle, always polluted by money in the electoral game, that is).

[mintogrubb.livejournal.com]

And the Democrats are 'liberals', right?

In the UK, the Conservatives call officially call themselves
'Conservatives, and there is a Liberal Party also.

But there are people ho would say 'I am conservative - with a small c". this means that they believe in marraige, go to church ,etc - but do not necessarily vote Conservative ( note the capital C).

[a-new-machine.livejournal.com]

Yeah, Democrats are the "liberal" wing of American politics - meaning generally a more controlled capitalism, with a hefty chunk of state spending and welfare support. Of course, in the US, people argue over who's liberal and who isn't. There's this idea of "classical liberalism," which is really just libertarianism/minarchism.

[meus-ovatio.livejournal.com]

I don't think so. The scales of economy that exist today are simply foreign to "classical liberals", and a large chunk of "classical liberals" advocated poverty stipends for all citizens, taken out of a general fund collected by taxation. Classical liberalism distinguishes itself with a strict distinction between property and land, and a robust defense of property taxation.

[a-new-machine.livejournal.com]

Agreed, but the idea of it in the US libertarian circles is that the classical liberals were really libertarians. Civil libertarians, perhaps, but not fiscally.

[rasilio.livejournal.com]

I havn't gotten any further than this in your post and I don't really need to because it says everything....


"Either you believed that profits were all important - you wanted a Free Market, a small State"


This statement so completely misrepresents the position and view of Free Market advocates that it shows that you clearly have no comprehension of what we are saying.

The correct form is...

Either you believed that freedom is all important - you wanted a Free Market, a small State"

See here is the thing. You actually maximize profits in a Mercantilist or Corporatist state because the State forces the populace to work for the wages and purchase the products at the price that most benefits the corporations.

In a Free Market you are not Profit Maximizing, you are freedom maximizing and you accept lower profits because you are refraining from compelling anyone to do anything relying instead on voluntary cooperation between people to meet all of societies needs.

In a few minutes I'll get to the rest of your post and try to comment on it.

[usekh.livejournal.com]

Except that before regulation companies found all kinds of ways to force people to work for them, and buy goods off them. Mining companies especially. Paying folks in company scrip, forcing them to buy only the goods they stocked, mining towns where you didn't actually own the property. Generations of people were effectively forced to work for the company.

[mintogrubb.livejournal.com]

Quite. If you are maximising freedom - where is the fredom to negotiate for more wages through collective action?

Fredom is more than just freedom to make profits for bosses, it equals freedom from stravation , disease and poverty.

[usekh.livejournal.com]

It is curious that a lot of Libertarians are anti union. Although ones that think carefully tend not to be, but are opposed to closed shops.

[rasilio.livejournal.com]

This issue has been raised in the Libertariansim community here in the past.

In general most Libertarians are perfectly ok with the concept of Unions as long as those Unions are not granted any legal powers their individual members possess.

That means the employers cannot be compelled to negotiate with unions nor can they be legally compelled to pay union wages even if their workers are not union members.

So the issue is not with the idea of unions, the issue is with the specific implementation of unions in the western nations (but primarily the US) today.

Also as a general rule while most of them are ok with the idea of unions they have no personal interest in ever being a member of one.

[rasilio.livejournal.com]

No here is another misconception.

You cannot be made free from starvation, disease, or poverty.

In order to do so requires that someone else be compelled to provide you with food, medical care, and money whether they want to or not.

There is a word we have for someone being compelled to provide you with a good or service against their will, bonus points if you can get it.

[mintogrubb.livejournal.com]

You cannot be made free from starvation, disease, or poverty.
I can see the logic you are using, but it is simply a bit of semantics, surely?

I was vaccinated against polio as a child. I was therefore freed from falling victim to that disease. someone made me free of it. ok, there isn't a vaccine for common colds ( yet0 but someone freed me from one particualr disease, so why not try to free me from something else?

In order to do so requires that someone else be compelled to provide you with food, medical care, and money whether they want to or not.

Using the same logic, if you want to have the right to 'life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness' , say - they you can only have them if other people will stand up and defend those rights.

Now, are there people willing to become police officers, armed soldiers, court officials of their own free will? Yes indeed. There is no need to coerce your fellow citizen. you will find that many will volunteer to become policemen to safeguard your property rights . others will volunteer for military service to defend democcratic freedom and liberty from foriegn invasion.

by the same token , there are those who become doctors, farmers and who will operate businesses as my employer in order for me to get all the education , medical care and money I need. all they ask is a contribution from me in return.

I don't agree that ' taxation is theft' if taxation is democratically levied. No taxation without representaion ' does imply that if representatives are elected on a 'tax and spend' platform , that those who voted against have a choice - leave the country , campaign for repealing the law or simply accept that the will of the people is against what they desire.

some may argue that this is simply tyrranical. however, we havea law that says that we drive on left hand side in the UK. so, what happens if I decide that I am going to do what suits me and drive on the right?

Every country sets out a 'social conract' between itself and its citizens.
if you don't like the way your country is run , the option is to get it changed or to leave.

[mintogrubb.livejournal.com]

Ok, but does this 'freedom ' include the freedom to insist that the boss fixes that machine with a safty guard/ that he stops using chemicals and processes that impairs the workers health? does it include the freedom to down tools and refuse to work if s/he doesn't? the freedom of workers to vote? For women to insist on getting the same pay as the men?

I mean , if the victorians had got all these freedoms , there would have been no unions ( ppl like me don't pay union dues for getting things they already have).

The use of company stores and the like was a great recruiting sergeant for the Trade Union Movement. At least in Britain. I wonder how the USA avoided such things.

[dwer.livejournal.com]

no no no... "freedom" is the freedom to do whatever you want. Don't want to work for the boss who won't fix the machine? You're "free" to get another job.

Want to exercise your first amendment rights? You're "free" to get your head bashed in by pinkerton guards.

[mintogrubb.livejournal.com]

And presumably, I am free to starve , alongside my wife and kids, if I don't want to work for less than a living wage.

Meanwhile, the boss is free to take on anyone else who is forced to work for a pittace because of ' supply and demand'.

I like the idea of 'maximising freedom, but have found out the hard way that your choices under a free market system are dramatically reduced when you have no goods or skills to sell and no money to buy with.

[rasilio.livejournal.com]

Yes, you are free to starve.

The thing is in a free market with very few barriers to entry for new businesses EVERYONE has a good or service to sell and the biggest problem to overcome tends to be labor shortages.

[rasilio.livejournal.com]

No you are not free to get your head bashed in by Pinkertons and the fact that the corporations that engaged in such activities were not put out of business and their senior managers jailed for the action is exactly the sort of government backing I am talking about.

[dwer.livejournal.com]

but that's... REGULATION!

DUN DUN DUNNNNNNNNNNNNNN!

[rasilio.livejournal.com]

No it is not.

You do not have the right to initiate violence against me.

Therefore neither does your company.

Free Market <> Complete Anarchy.

There will still be rules in a Free Market

[mintogrubb.livejournal.com]

I prefer to call it an Open Market.

People may not have any right to initiate violence against the workers, but if there is nothing to stop them... well, power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

violence against union members was something we learned about in school.

They even tried to stop people voting by having a regiment of draggons charge a Chartism March in Manchester, England.
The Peterloo Massacre , it was called.

[rasilio.livejournal.com]

Right and whose dragoons were they? The corporations or the governments?

Who is it that you want to have more power again?

[mintogrubb.livejournal.com]

The government in those days was only elected by men who were earning 40 shillings per annum. A tidy sum in those days.

Suffice it to say that it was a government of the rich, for the rich, and by the rich.

The only way of shifting them from office was to give more power to the working poor.
Letting poor people have a vote, reforming elections to the secret ballotsystem so that there were no reprisals, abolishing the " rotten boroughs" and such like things.

It is not to say that all conservatives were ' robber barons' or tyrannical mill owners - but sadly, many were.

[dwer.livejournal.com]

yes, but SOMEONE HAS TO ENFORCE THEM. And lord knows, businesses won't do it themselves.

[rasilio.livejournal.com]

Ok, but does this 'freedom ' include the...


freedom to insist that the boss fixes that machine with a safty guard/

Yes, but he is also free to tell you no. As long as he is not using force of threat of force to compel you to work for him you are both free to make any choices you like.

that he stops using chemicals and processes that impairs the workers health?

Yes, but he is also free to tell you no. As long as he is not using force of threat of force to compel you to work for him you are both free to make any choices you like.

does it include the freedom to down tools and refuse to work if s/he doesn't?

Absolutely but he is free to fire you for it.

the freedom of workers to vote?

If we are assuming a representative democracy of some sort absolutely.

For women to insist on getting the same pay as the men?

Certainly, although again the boss is free to say no.


The key is that as long as you are free to choose where to work the employer is not forcing you to do anything and while employers will always have more power than workers it is a 45/55 split in power not the 10/90 split that socialists and other leftists argue exists. That is unless government specifically backs the employer.

"I mean , if the victorians had got all these freedoms , there would have been no unions ( ppl like me don't pay union dues for getting things they already have)."

Sure there would have been. Maybe not to the extent that they existed but they would have existed because no matter what they raise wages by restricting the supply of labor and for low skilled workers they are one of the few leverage tools available.

"The use of company stores and the like was a great recruiting sergeant for the Trade Union Movement."

Ah yes, the company store. We had them here in the States as well. The thing is they only work in nations without adequate bankruptcy laws. This is what I mean by government siding with the employer. Weak Bankruptcy laws favor the consumer, Strong ones favor Businesses. All Economic systems need some form of legal code on how to deal with bankruptcy because all the good planning and intentions in the world cannot always prevent financial insolvency, the question then becomes how does the situation get handled?

Now here one might be tempted to argue that the free market solution is that contracts are inviolable and that there are no remedies barred to the creditor in collecting a debt from an insolvent debtor. Thing is it is not.

The free market solution is to allow anyone to enter into any contract they want but then to provide sensible sane dispute resolution arbitration when inevitably some of those contracts go bad and that includes discharging some bad debts in bankruptcy.

This means legally the fact that you owe the company more money that you are ever likely to earn in your life because of company store practices is irrelevant, you are still free to quit your job and get another one. As for your debt, well sorry company you're not getting more than pennies on the dollar of that money back, the remaining debt is being discharged in bankruptcy.

[mintogrubb.livejournal.com]

The bit about being allowed to quit your job assumes, of course , that you can afford to.

if you are flat broke because your dad was an unskilled serf on a farm, and you are an unskilled worker in a Lancashire cotton mill, the chances are that you won't have savings , or have any chance of getting work within walking distance.

The only hope of raising your income was collective bargaining, and mill owners did not like it.

As you have said before - it's about maximising freedom , not profit. but unless people have got money to loive on , they have very little freedom , whereas a mill owner can lock the gates and starve the workforce into submision if he chooses to do so.

Against this backdrop was Unionism and Socialism born in England.

[geezer-also.livejournal.com]

My major contribution to any discussion on economic theory is asking questions. I will say I'm proly closer to bdj, mr, and gs than mahnmut and UL, but I always appreciate getting mentioned, due to my low self image, I'm even Happy to get bad things said about me, it means I'm noticed :D (not that you did)

[the-rukh.livejournal.com]

one of us one of us one of us one of us one of us one of us one of us one of us one of us one of us one of us one of us one of us one of us one of us one of us one of us one of us one of us one of us one of us one of us one of us one of us one of us one of us one of us one of us one of us one of us one of us one of us

[ccr1138.livejournal.com]

Maybe a social liberal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_liberalism)?

I myself am a classical liberal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism).

Apologies for citing Wiki, but I found their summaries to be quite good in this case.

[mintogrubb.livejournal.com]

They are quite ok, so long as they provide cites to the original sources. And they often do.

So, having read it, I am indeed A Social Liberal.
go me!

Thanks for answering my question.

[mahnmut.livejournal.com]

I did what?

[mintogrubb.livejournal.com]

Sorry I mangled your username, but yes, I did mean you.
you have consistently and intelligently argued for human rights and people's dignity against the monetarist's claims that we cannot afford these things, and therefore deserve an honourable mention in dispatches.

[mahnmut.livejournal.com]

I meant this:

My thanks to those 'across the aisle' - chiefly [info]badlydrawnjeff, [info]mrbogey and [info]gunslinger, who have made several informative and challenging observations in my last OP. Mention should also go to those who came at it from an anti-monetarist position, too -
[info]underlankens, [info]geezer_also and [info]manhout especially.

I didn't do anything special in your last OP, apart from being too dense about a couple of semantic discrepancies. ;-)

[mintogrubb.livejournal.com]

Ah - I specifically mentioned my last OP, that is true - but I was also mindful of the comments you made on previous posts, to me and other people.

You have conisitently made good points for the liberal argument before, that is what I meant, and I wasn't exactly clear on that.

In general, this is a pretty good forum.

It may be that Communism is not the same as thing Socialism, but also that Liberalism is something different again. So, it turns out that I'm not a Socialist after al - but then, neither is Obama.

It is a Social Liberal in the White House that has got American right wingers in a flap.

[rasilio.livejournal.com]

Ok now that I have read the rest of your post I have to say, your miscategorization of the free market argument and failure to recognize that Monetarists are not libertarians (although we do have similar views of economics) aside your question is valid.

It is an issue I have alluded to in comments and considered making a top level post on before.

Communisim, Socialism, Fascisim, all centrally planned economies and all pretty thorougly rejected by the entire world as failures (Cuba and North Korea being the exceptions).

However, what do you call someone who wants a centrally regulated but not planned economy? That allows for the private ownership of capital and instead of outright telling them what they will do with their capital just sets up strict regulatory boundaries to control them?

Most people call it Socialism even though it technically is not.

[mintogrubb.livejournal.com]

It would be good to hear an OP from your POV , i think. i hope you get the chance to post it soon.

[foolsguinea.livejournal.com]

Well, I'm glad you're getting past false dichotomies.

[mintogrubb.livejournal.com]

Well, it will be nice when Americans stop calling Obama a Communist.
Once he has used the power of the State to nationalise a few industries - or even just one - then we can start calling him a Socialist. For the time being , we must accept him as a Social Liberal, though. And I think that will be enough to have lots of Ameicans wetting their pants.