I have heard you say on a podcast- “young people are attracted to socialism because they simply know no history.”
You then went on to use the murderous regimes of Stalin, Mao etc as evidence that socialism can’t possibly have any merit and capitalism is superior.
However- you conveniently leave out the violent regimes of the capitalist world and do not use the same logic when relating them to capitalism as you do in the socialism examples. It is incredible that you can use murderous regimes as evidence against socialism while leaving out slavery or the way the west was won - or even recent wars in Vietnam where we committed crimes against humanity under the dubious guise of fighting communism. You could also apply the same logic to make arguments against liberty if you are drawing a red line with violence. Extreme act of Violence and mass killings among citizens occurs at lower rates in socialist societies than in the most successful capitalist society- does this give reason to claim liberty is the cause of such violence and thus should be constrained?
If your Gold standard for debasing an entire system is violence by its leaders then you should also be against capitalism given the incentives it provides for the production of arms which perpetuate said violence and liberty given the extreme violence that are prevalent in both systems.
Simply put - I think you can do better. You have a stance on these things, such as anarchy capitalism which you have a right to have. But Free thinkers can also very clearly underscore the dangers of capitalism and libertarian ideology and to suggest there are no viable reasons for promoting a more socialist agenda except being uneducated, is short sighted. There are many outcomes in socialist societies, successful ones, that hit higher marks than in our capitalist society. Capitalism and socialism each have their benefits to add to the good life and their preference really has to do with the outcome one is seeking.
Thus I find this argument strange and would like to understand whether you really see this as a viable arguement against socialism and if you will continue to repeat it given the chance.
One of the distortions due to Marx is the division of economic systems into "socialism" and "capitalism."
A far better distinction is between classical liberalism, such as Smith's "System of Natural Liberty," and Marxist socialism. Insofar as Marxists equate capitalism and greed, then of course many horrible things have been done on behalf of "capitalism."
The problem with that perspective is that humans have been murderous and rapacious forever. The standard model throughout human history was conquest in which the victorious tribe slaughtered all the men, raped the women, and enslaved the surviving women and children. If one regards this as the de facto reality of human existence, then the rise of trade was generally less horrific (e.g. let's enslave the men rather than slaughter them all), but still pretty horrific.
In stable societies, rulers and elites typically did whatever they pleased to the rest of the population. Setting aside a handful of egalitarian tribes, once one gets to 18th century France, one finds a ruling class that has no regard whatsoever for the well being of the people.
Meanwhile, England had a long tradition in which those being taxed gradually demanded more representation in the political process. From the Magna Carta to the Glorious Revolution to John Locke, a tradition of some representation along with analysis of how to restrain government became increasingly common. When the American founders created the founding documents of the U.S., they were explicitly focused on securing the rights of the citizens (which, yes, excluded women, African Americans, and Native Americans).
Back in Britain, Adam Smith had articulated the fact that the "system of natural liberty" would lead to mass prosperity. The classical liberal advocates of this system in the UK and US created the first nations in which working class people became prosperous. The idea of citizen rights, human rights, and civil rights gradually expanded such that by the end of the 19th century slavery had been abolished and there was a movement to expand rights to all.
Many of the classical liberals were leading advocates against slavery and imperialism,
"The Manchester School took the theories of economic liberalism advocated by classical economists such as Adam Smith and made them the basis for government policy. It also promoted pacifism, anti-slavery, freedom of the press and separation of church and state.[1]"
William Graham Sumner, a leading classical liberal in the U.S., was a leader of the anti-imperialist league. It was a classical liberal who first called out the genocide in the Congo.
Thus by the late 19th century, classical liberalism had:
1. A coherent free market economic system that led to mass prosperity.
2. Sophisticated analyses of how to restrain government and protect rights.
3. A growing moral vision that encompassed previously disenfranchised groups under the rights protection that had been developing for centuries.
On the other side, insofar as "socialism" consists of small voluntary experiments, I'm enthusiastically in favor of such experiments, whether they be in monastaries, Robert Owen style communes, or kibbutizes.
Thus the proper heroes of the story are classical liberalism along with voluntary social experiments (some of which might be "socialist.")
In this context, Marx proposes absolute destructive nonsense theory (Abolish private property rights? Collectivized agriculture? Dictatorship of the proletariat? Dismissing economic theory as bourgeois prejudice? Dismissing any concern for rights? Ignoring any theory of how to constrain the powers of the state? No regard for rule of law? Etc.)
The Marxist framework was garbage theory from the start that undermined or ignored thousands of pages of thoughtful classical liberal thought. The 1893 book Pictures of a Socialist Future envisioned many of the catastrophes of 20th century Marxist socialism. Any thoughtful person should have seen where this was going.
The Lenin, who was evil, destroyed the possibility of a liberal solution in Russia and began the nightmarish 20th century. I don't need to repeat it here.
So bottom line, if you prefer to celebrate the classical liberal tradition and regard "capitalism" as a tainted concept, that is fine. If you want to celebrate small, voluntary socialist experiments, that is fine. If you want to celebrate the free market welfare states of Scandinavia, that is fine (in many ways they are more free market than the U.S., despite their huge welfare states).
But between classical liberalism, on the one hand, and Marxist socialism, on the other, the moral calculus is clear. Classical liberalism is the foundation of most of what is good in the world with respect to governments and economics. Marxist socialism has been an unmitigated failure, evil at the level of the Nazis.
I have heard you say on a podcast- “young people are attracted to socialism because they simply know no history.”
You then went on to use the murderous regimes of Stalin, Mao etc as evidence that socialism can’t possibly have any merit and capitalism is superior.
However- you conveniently leave out the violent regimes of the capitalist world and do not use the same logic when relating them to capitalism as you do in the socialism examples. It is incredible that you can use murderous regimes as evidence against socialism while leaving out slavery or the way the west was won - or even recent wars in Vietnam where we committed crimes against humanity under the dubious guise of fighting communism. You could also apply the same logic to make arguments against liberty if you are drawing a red line with violence. Extreme act of Violence and mass killings among citizens occurs at lower rates in socialist societies than in the most successful capitalist society- does this give reason to claim liberty is the cause of such violence and thus should be constrained?
If your Gold standard for debasing an entire system is violence by its leaders then you should also be against capitalism given the incentives it provides for the production of arms which perpetuate said violence and liberty given the extreme violence that are prevalent in both systems.
Simply put - I think you can do better. You have a stance on these things, such as anarchy capitalism which you have a right to have. But Free thinkers can also very clearly underscore the dangers of capitalism and libertarian ideology and to suggest there are no viable reasons for promoting a more socialist agenda except being uneducated, is short sighted. There are many outcomes in socialist societies, successful ones, that hit higher marks than in our capitalist society. Capitalism and socialism each have their benefits to add to the good life and their preference really has to do with the outcome one is seeking.
Thus I find this argument strange and would like to understand whether you really see this as a viable arguement against socialism and if you will continue to repeat it given the chance.
One of the distortions due to Marx is the division of economic systems into "socialism" and "capitalism."
A far better distinction is between classical liberalism, such as Smith's "System of Natural Liberty," and Marxist socialism. Insofar as Marxists equate capitalism and greed, then of course many horrible things have been done on behalf of "capitalism."
The problem with that perspective is that humans have been murderous and rapacious forever. The standard model throughout human history was conquest in which the victorious tribe slaughtered all the men, raped the women, and enslaved the surviving women and children. If one regards this as the de facto reality of human existence, then the rise of trade was generally less horrific (e.g. let's enslave the men rather than slaughter them all), but still pretty horrific.
In stable societies, rulers and elites typically did whatever they pleased to the rest of the population. Setting aside a handful of egalitarian tribes, once one gets to 18th century France, one finds a ruling class that has no regard whatsoever for the well being of the people.
Meanwhile, England had a long tradition in which those being taxed gradually demanded more representation in the political process. From the Magna Carta to the Glorious Revolution to John Locke, a tradition of some representation along with analysis of how to restrain government became increasingly common. When the American founders created the founding documents of the U.S., they were explicitly focused on securing the rights of the citizens (which, yes, excluded women, African Americans, and Native Americans).
Back in Britain, Adam Smith had articulated the fact that the "system of natural liberty" would lead to mass prosperity. The classical liberal advocates of this system in the UK and US created the first nations in which working class people became prosperous. The idea of citizen rights, human rights, and civil rights gradually expanded such that by the end of the 19th century slavery had been abolished and there was a movement to expand rights to all.
Many of the classical liberals were leading advocates against slavery and imperialism,
"The Manchester School took the theories of economic liberalism advocated by classical economists such as Adam Smith and made them the basis for government policy. It also promoted pacifism, anti-slavery, freedom of the press and separation of church and state.[1]"
William Graham Sumner, a leading classical liberal in the U.S., was a leader of the anti-imperialist league. It was a classical liberal who first called out the genocide in the Congo.
Thus by the late 19th century, classical liberalism had:
1. A coherent free market economic system that led to mass prosperity.
2. Sophisticated analyses of how to restrain government and protect rights.
3. A growing moral vision that encompassed previously disenfranchised groups under the rights protection that had been developing for centuries.
On the other side, insofar as "socialism" consists of small voluntary experiments, I'm enthusiastically in favor of such experiments, whether they be in monastaries, Robert Owen style communes, or kibbutizes.
Thus the proper heroes of the story are classical liberalism along with voluntary social experiments (some of which might be "socialist.")
In this context, Marx proposes absolute destructive nonsense theory (Abolish private property rights? Collectivized agriculture? Dictatorship of the proletariat? Dismissing economic theory as bourgeois prejudice? Dismissing any concern for rights? Ignoring any theory of how to constrain the powers of the state? No regard for rule of law? Etc.)
The Marxist framework was garbage theory from the start that undermined or ignored thousands of pages of thoughtful classical liberal thought. The 1893 book Pictures of a Socialist Future envisioned many of the catastrophes of 20th century Marxist socialism. Any thoughtful person should have seen where this was going.
The Lenin, who was evil, destroyed the possibility of a liberal solution in Russia and began the nightmarish 20th century. I don't need to repeat it here.
So bottom line, if you prefer to celebrate the classical liberal tradition and regard "capitalism" as a tainted concept, that is fine. If you want to celebrate small, voluntary socialist experiments, that is fine. If you want to celebrate the free market welfare states of Scandinavia, that is fine (in many ways they are more free market than the U.S., despite their huge welfare states).
But between classical liberalism, on the one hand, and Marxist socialism, on the other, the moral calculus is clear. Classical liberalism is the foundation of most of what is good in the world with respect to governments and economics. Marxist socialism has been an unmitigated failure, evil at the level of the Nazis.