The Thread of Democrats

[Hermit]

We're are just back at where we were in that other thread. Economic liberalism is a thing. Without cutting and pasting definitions again, it's about individuals and their interactions in marketplaces being as free as possible. The fettering of markets by social democracy with things like wealth redistribution, and distortions like a minimum wage, are antithetical to economic liberalism.

You're talking about neoliberalism again. Your initial objection was to Brian's statement that You know things are broken when liberal economists like Reich are talking about oligarchs. You do realise that a liberal economist like Robert Reich is not an economic liberal, don't you?

[pErvinalia]

Tell Brian that. He called him an economic liberal. Or perhaps stop commenting on a discussion you clearly haven't followed.

[Brian Peacock]

Actually, as I've pointed out and qualified, I didn't. You brought that concept to the table, and ran with it, and you're still locating the discussion on terms rather than ideas. Now, do you have any argument to support your assertion that social democrats are not centrist in their outlook? Rememver, you chided my for saying they were centrist and I'm interested in what specifically qualified as centrist and what specifically excludes social democrats from being members of that broad and liberal church.

[rainbow]

How is it liberal, though? It's socially liberal, but it's not economically liberal. It's for heavily fettered markets. Liberal economics is the embracing of a market as free as possible.

To what extent is social democracy not economically liberal, and, given that it's a broad church, how?

As the Social Democrats and Liberals merged into one party in the UK now known as the Literal Dingbats

[pErvinalia]

I said in the other thread that centrism is relative to the political system being interrogated.

I never said social democrats couldn't be centrist. I'm contesting your assertion that all social democrats are centrist. I've also asked you in a roundabout way to explain where "left" (or centrism) starts/stops.

[Svartalf]

tell that to French lefty bourgeoisie... they'll never agree that money is the only thing of value, culture goes first.

The French lefty bourgeoisie makes up 1.021% of the French population.

but they are a very vocal minority.

[pErvinalia]

Actually, as I've pointed out and qualified, I didn't. You brought that concept to the table, and ran with it...

So did you. You called him an economic liberal and pro free market. That's what a proponent of economic liberalism is. No amount of waffling from you changes these facts.

[Brian Peacock]

I said in the other thread that centrism is relative to the political system being interrogated.

I never said social democrats couldn't be centrist. I'm contesting your assertion that all social democrats are centrist. I've also asked you in a roundabout way to explain where "left" (or centrism) starts/stops.

I feel like we might be getting somewhere now.

So am I in right in thinking that you're saying that it's not that social democrats can't be centrist in their outlook, it's just that they're not necessarily centrist because social democracy doesn't necessarily locate itself, or isn't necessarily located, on the centre ground between broadly left and broadly right perspectives?

As I said earlier, I gave my reasons for what I said regarding centrism and social democracy, as well as qualifying my use of the term liberal. I'm happy to discuss my opinions further but only if you're up to honestly reflecting and addressing what I've said in good faith.

[pErvinalia]

So am I in right in thinking that you're saying that it's not that social democrats can't be centrist in their outlook, it's just that they're not necessarily centrist because social democracy doesn't necessarily locate itself, or isn't necessarily located, on the centre ground between broadly left and broadly right perspectives?

Well yeah, unless "broadly left" means socialism/anarchism and "broadly right" means libertarianism.

Now, where does "left" start/stop, and how does that fit with the idea of social democracy being both centrist and also a blend of capitalism and socialism? Most particularly the left part of social democracy - what might be best called progressivism.

[Hermit]

tell that to French lefty bourgeoisie... they'll never agree that money is the only thing of value, culture goes first.

The French lefty bourgeoisie makes up 1.021% of the French population.

but they are a very vocal minority.

Arguably not a significantly greater minority on a pro rata basis than the equivalent social stratum anywhere else in western civilisations, including the USA. Hence, viewtopic.php?p=1843349#p1843349

[Brian Peacock]

...

Now, where does "left" start/stop, and how does that fit with the idea of social democracy being both centrist and also a blend of capitalism and socialism? Most particularly the left part of social democracy - what might be best called progressivism.

My personal view is that this blend of socialism and capitalism - or as I've put it, the centrist idea that capitalism can be tamed and harnessed for social goods - is what being a liberal is all about, with the distinction between the different brands of liberalism mostly being accounted for by the relative balance of free market economics against those social goods. In this respect there's always a trade off. Unlike these social liberals (of various stripes) I think that free market economics and social goods are fundamentally at odds with each other as that middle-ground trade off has to make an accomodation with the exploitative practices upon which capitalism relies. While I'd acknowledge that centrisms can be left- or right-leaning to different degrees I think the border between left and right is the border between socialism and capitalism. These are the only games in town, and they are mutually exclusive.

[Scot Dutchy]

tell that to French lefty bourgeoisie... they'll never agree that money is the only thing of value, culture goes first.

The French lefty bourgeoisie makes up 1.021% of the French population.

The 1%!.

[JimC]

Brian Peacock wrote:

In this respect there's always a trade off. Unlike these social liberals (of various stripes) I think that free market economics and social goods are fundamentally at odds with each other as that middle-ground trade off has to make an accomodation with the exploitative practices upon which capitalism relies.

All real-world politics involves a trade off. Instead of "fundamentally at odds with each other", I would say that there is tension between the two, but that the extent to which a country achieves a balance between social goods and a free market should be resolved by the ballot box. What I hope is that a growing awareness of climate change will become a major factor in voting patterns which determine the balance; clearly I want a political system where elected governments have the economic policy reins firmly in their hands, and that free enterprise simply has to operate in that environment. In addition, the markets aren't stupid - already there is increased flow of money towards renewables, which should strengthen as corporate policy makers see which way the wind blows...

And Brian, without directly saying so, all your comments suggest having no truck whatsoever with capitalism, implying you think it should be done away with. Given that it won't go quietly, are you in fact arguing for violent revolution to dismantle it? If so, a study of history will show how fraught that becomes, and how quickly the end justifying the means leads to fanaticism of a very nasty form...

[pErvinalia]

...

Now, where does "left" start/stop, and how does that fit with the idea of social democracy being both centrist and also a blend of capitalism and socialism? Most particularly the left part of social democracy - what might be best called progressivism.

My personal view is that this blend of socialism and capitalism - or as I've put it, the centrist idea that capitalism can be tamed and harnessed for social goods - is what being a liberal is all about,..

It's not, really. Being liberal is not about taming capitalism. It's about allowing capital/labour/etc markets to be relatively free as possible to maybe provide those social goods. You are confusing liberalism with social democracy. They aren't synonymous.

While I'd acknowledge that centrisms can be left- or right-leaning to different degrees I think the border between left and right is the border between socialism and capitalism. These are the only games in town, and they are mutually exclusive.

You are the only person that I have ever heard of as referring to all capitalism as right, and the mix of capitalism and socialism as centrist. What do you say about this and the fact that basically everyone else considers, say, the UK Labor party, as being left? I put it to you this is just empty rhetoric by you in your goal to bolster your socialist ideology.

[Brian Peacock]

Brian Peacock wrote:

In this respect there's always a trade off. Unlike these social liberals (of various stripes) I think that free market economics and social goods are fundamentally at odds with each other as that middle-ground trade off has to make an accomodation with the exploitative practices upon which capitalism relies.

All real-world politics involves a trade off. Instead of "fundamentally at odds with each other", I would say that there is tension between the two, but that the extent to which a country achieves a balance between social goods and a free market should be resolved by the ballot box. What I hope is that a growing awareness of climate change will become a major factor in voting patterns which determine the balance; clearly I want a political system where elected governments have the economic policy reins firmly in their hands, and that free enterprise simply has to operate in that environment. In addition, the markets aren't stupid - already there is increased flow of money towards renewables, which should strengthen as corporate policy makers see which way the wind blows...

While I'd acknowledge that this seem quite reasonable from the Western perspective my personal position stands as a counter to the exploitative practices upon which capitalism relies. I would be interested to hear you thoughts on where and how firm governmental hands on domestic economic policy might benefit indentured child labours mining Cobalt in the Congo for your domestic and personal electronics for example.

And Brian, without directly saying so, all your comments suggest having no truck whatsoever with capitalism, implying you think it should be done away with. Given that it won't go quietly, are you in fact arguing for violent revolution to dismantle it? If so, a study of history will show how fraught that becomes, and how quickly the end justifying the means leads to fanaticism of a very nasty form...

With respect, what a load of nonsense. Look, I'm a constitutional republican to but I'm also committed to pacifism. I'm no more arguing for the violent overthrow of Capitalism than I am advocating stringing Prince Charles up by his lugholes. I think it's telling that challenging the liberal hegemony is so routinely and casually equated with unjustified violence.