Ask Experts Questions for FREE Help !
Ask
    Dark_crow's Avatar
    Dark_crow Posts: 1,405, Reputation: 196
    Ultra Member
     
    #1

    Nov 23, 2007, 08:41 AM
    Capitalism vs. Socialism
    Two schools of thought exist running parallel with one another; one, Habermas's theoretical system of the possibility of reason and in the human capacity to deliberate and pursue rational interests [Constitutional liberalism]. The other, Bourdieu’s theoretical system argues that Constitutional liberalism is a form of domination. The poor, pressed by the need to make a living, don't have the luxury of developing the social and intellectual skills needed to participate in political deliberation.

    For Bourdieu, liberal constitutionalism's promise of a public sphere where the only thing that matters is the strength of your arguments is inherently part of the system of domination.


    If given what I said is true, can Socialist and Capitalist ever come to an agreement?
    RickJ's Avatar
    RickJ Posts: 7,762, Reputation: 864
    Uber Member
     
    #2

    Nov 23, 2007, 08:46 AM
    In my opinion, the two ideas (in the US anyways) are already beginning to "come to an agreement" with those in power who on one side continue to support the business base of this country - and on the other sde continue to grow a government who will tell us (and mandate/dictate) more and more what is best for everyone.
    Dark_crow's Avatar
    Dark_crow Posts: 1,405, Reputation: 196
    Ultra Member
     
    #3

    Nov 23, 2007, 09:32 AM
    Quote Originally Posted by RickJ
    In my opinion, the two ideas (in the US anyways) are already beginning to "come to an agreement" with those in power who on one side continue to support the business base of this country - and on the other sde continue to grow a government who will tell us (and mandate/dictate) more and more what is best for everyone.
    Implicit in that conclusion is that the concept, co-operation, is synonymous with agreement. It also raises the question of whether America continues to practice constitutional liberalism, and if so to what degree.
    RickJ's Avatar
    RickJ Posts: 7,762, Reputation: 864
    Uber Member
     
    #4

    Nov 23, 2007, 09:34 AM
    You make an excellent point about which I cannot comment. I cannot see that far ahead. In some ways I'm glad I can't. I wish to remain hopeful :)
    N0help4u's Avatar
    N0help4u Posts: 19,823, Reputation: 2035
    Uber Member
     
    #5

    Nov 23, 2007, 02:22 PM
    The only comment I have about capitalism and socialism is that as poor as I am and God knows I can use the help from programs I can not see the socialism that many poor and politicians would like to see because then, for one, what is the incentive for the rich to keep the economy going? What will we do if everything for everybody is handed out and nobody feels the NEED to work? I already know hundreds of poor people that feel no need to work and they are most wasteful and unappreciative of what they do 'get'. They are literally wasting their life away.
    Dark_crow's Avatar
    Dark_crow Posts: 1,405, Reputation: 196
    Ultra Member
     
    #6

    Nov 23, 2007, 02:36 PM
    Quote Originally Posted by N0help4u
    The only comment I have about capitalism and socialism is that as poor as I am and God knows I can use the help from programs I can not see the socialism that many poor and politicians would like to see because then, for one, what is the incentive for the rich to keep the economy going? What will we do if everything for everybody is handed out and nobody feels the NEED to work? I already know hundreds of poor people that feel no need to work and they are most wasteful and unappreciative of what they do 'get'. They are literally wasting their life away.
    I hear you Sapphire; I'm so poor I hang toilet paper out to dry.:D

    I should not have used the term, 'Socialist' so loosely. I should have said, “Chavismo or Chavezism” which is a mix of socialism and capitalism.

    So you can see, my OP was a mess where I said capitalism vs. socialism. It should have read, “Constitutional liberalism vs. “Chavismo.” And the question should have been...
    tomder55's Avatar
    tomder55 Posts: 1,742, Reputation: 346
    Ultra Member
     
    #7

    Nov 24, 2007, 11:27 AM
    Chavezism is much like the socialisms of the past . Using Bourdieu's thesis thugs have used demagogic populism to rally the masses under the premise that they will be taken care of by the thug. Typically after they gain control and consolidate their absolute power they fail to deliver and the masses end up worse than they were before . Populism in itself is not bad . But when it isn't tempered by the values of liberal democracy it leads to dictatorship . In this regard Chavez appears to be a mirror image of Castro ,and perhaps Juan Peron.

    Chavez is well on his way to consolidation. Venezuelans are being asked to vote on 69 constitutional amendments he proposed, that he calls 21st-Century Socialism ;that would effectively put a knife into Venezuelan constitutional liberalism . Although public opinion is decidedly against his "reforms " I have no doubt they will be adopted . He has called anyone who would vote against them traitors.

    Still, supporters of pluralistic, constitutional democracy have not given up. University students have marched in opposition to the proposals, despite violence from pro-Chavez forces and jeers from the president, who calls them "fascists" and "rich bourgeois brats." But as Douglas Cassel of the Center for Civil and Human Rights at the University of Notre Dame put it in a recent radio commentary, "Show me a revolution opposed by uni- versity students en masse, and I'll show you a phony revolution."
    http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/c...2491852.column

    Ivan Stalin González, who prefers to be called just plain Stalin, is president of the student body at the Central University of Venezuela, or UCV, Venezuela's biggest public university. During the past few weeks, Mr. González and other student leaders here have organized protest marches by tens of thousands of students opposed to a constitutional referendum set for Dec. 2.. .

    The student movement has taken the government by surprise, highlighting an embarrassing irony for the fiery Mr. Chávez: University students, long a bastion of the left here as in the rest of Latin America, are overwhelmingly opposed to him. They have also emerged, along with the Catholic Church, as among the last major opposition to Mr. Chávez in a country where he already controls the congress, courts, army and most media outlets.
    But I doubt you will hear a peep of protest by the US left about this destruction of liberal democracy in Venezuela.
    Dark_crow's Avatar
    Dark_crow Posts: 1,405, Reputation: 196
    Ultra Member
     
    #8

    Nov 24, 2007, 01:35 PM
    Quote Originally Posted by tomder55
    Chavezism is much like the socialisms of the past . Using Bourdieu's thesis thugs have used demagogic populism to rally the masses under the premise that they will be taken care of by the thug. Typically after they gain control and consolidate their absolute power they fail to deliver and the masses end up worse than they were before . Populism in itself is not bad . But when it isn't tempered by the values of liberal democracy it leads to dictatorship . In this regard Chavez appears to be a mirror image of Castro ,and perhaps Juan Peron.

    Chavez is well on his way to consolidation. Venezuelans are being asked to vote on 69 constitutional amendments he proposed, that he calls 21st-Century Socialism ;that would effectively put a knife into Venezuelan constitutional liberalism . Although public opinion is decidely against his "reforms " I have no doubt they will be adopted . He has called anyone who would vote against them traitors.

    http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/c...2491852.column



    But I doubt you will hear a peep of protest by the US left about this destruction of liberal democracy in Venezuela.
    Yeah Tom, you're right on. The article by political scientists Javier Corrales and Michael Penfold is the very best analysis I have come across. It is long but well worth the read.

    “The Devil's Excrement.”

    The Devil's Excrement

    “Chávez never tires of proclaiming a commitment to participatory rather than liberal democracy. He is right that Venezuela is moving away from liberal democracy, but he is not replacing it with more par¬ticipation. Instead, Chávez is creating what many classical-liberal think¬ers feared most: a quasi-tyranny of the majority. The Chávez regime has emerged as an example of how leaders can exploit both state resources and the public's widespread desire for change to crowd out the opposi¬tion, and, by extension, democracy.”
    Dark_crow's Avatar
    Dark_crow Posts: 1,405, Reputation: 196
    Ultra Member
     
    #9

    Nov 24, 2007, 02:39 PM
    Quote Originally Posted by tomder55
    Using Bourdieu's thesis thugs have used demagogic populism to rally the masses under the premise that they will be taken care of by the thug.
    That sounds strangely like the Democratic Party Line.:D
    Fr_Chuck's Avatar
    Fr_Chuck Posts: 81,301, Reputation: 7692
    Expert
     
    #10

    Nov 24, 2007, 03:02 PM
    Part of the issue is socialism in its pure form, just can not exist because of the evil of mans values. It is always tainted by control and power, so the item of it, as a possibility in any government is flawed not by its ideas, but by its structure.
    Dark_crow's Avatar
    Dark_crow Posts: 1,405, Reputation: 196
    Ultra Member
     
    #11

    Nov 24, 2007, 03:14 PM
    Quote Originally Posted by Fr_Chuck
    Part of the issue is socialism in its pure form, just can not exist becuase of the evil of mans values. It is always tainted by control and power, so the item of it, as a possiblity in any government is flawed not by its ideas, but by its stucture.
    True, Marx simply didn't understand human nature; and the idea too, that people would give up their religion was very naďve. The people in power grow to like having the power. So, they start do things to ensure that they stay in power; just as Chávez is attempting to do next month.
    ETWolverine's Avatar
    ETWolverine Posts: 934, Reputation: 275
    Senior Member
     
    #12

    Nov 26, 2007, 09:17 AM
    I find it interesting that Bourdeiu, who grew up in the democracy of the Third and Fourth Republics of France, and experienced German tyranny during the Vichy French era of WWII, would speak about the tyranny of Democracy as compared to socialist systems. Clearly the guy lived a sheltered life and never experienced REAL tyranny, even during the German occupation. If he had, I doubt that he would have pushed for a socialist system over a democratic one. And he never would have put the concept "symbolic violence" on the same tier of "domination" as the real violence of socialism in the real world. Sorry, but the idea that "society" might look askance at some of your actions if they are outside the norm in a democratic system ("symbolic violence" as defined by Bourdreiu) pales in comparison to being tortured, jailed and executed for the same actions in a socialist system.

    I think that Bourdeiu made many major contributions to the study of sociology, especially with regard to his scientific methodology. But his political stances were supermely idiotic and unrealistic. He was a Marxist of the first order, and never realized that the violence required for the real-world implementation of Marxist socialism far outweighed the "symbolic" violence of democracy. And this is something he SHOULD have realized given his own background, having lived through the real violence of Nazi occupied France.

    Elliot
    Dark_crow's Avatar
    Dark_crow Posts: 1,405, Reputation: 196
    Ultra Member
     
    #13

    Nov 26, 2007, 12:46 PM
    Elliot
    I think he viewed German tyranny and the atrocities as Democracy in action. What he didn't understand was economics and the necessity for Democracy to be at its best was in conjunction with Constitutional liberalism: theoretical system of the possibility of reason and in the human capacity to deliberate and pursue rational interests. How often do you run into people who simply refuse to engage critically with those who dissent and resort to name calling and stereotyping; for instance Chavez and other pure Socialist?
    ETWolverine's Avatar
    ETWolverine Posts: 934, Reputation: 275
    Senior Member
     
    #14

    Nov 26, 2007, 02:22 PM
    DC, I agree that that is how he viewed it. But it doesn't make sense. There was nothing democratic about what the Germans did, and trying to equate that with Constitutional Democracy is just plain wrong. However, what the Nazis did does have a very close resemblance to Socialism... and in fact it WAS Nationalist Socialism. Why he didn't equate the atrocities with socialism (and consequently draw similarities between Nazi Germany and Communist Russia or Communist North Korea or Communist China) I have no idea?

    I agree that there are some very unreasonable people out there who are not willing to face facts, but Bourdeiu's position takes a particular brand of head-in-sand stubbornness that is rare, even among ivory-tower intellectuals.

    Elliot
    Dark_crow's Avatar
    Dark_crow Posts: 1,405, Reputation: 196
    Ultra Member
     
    #15

    Nov 26, 2007, 02:57 PM
    Quote Originally Posted by ETWolverine
    DC, I agree that that is how he viewed it. But it doesn't make sense. There was nothing democratic about what the Germans did, and trying to equate that with Constitutional Democracy is just plain wrong. However, what the Nazis did does have a very close resemblance to Socialism... and in fact it WAS Nationalist Socialism. Why he didn't equate the attrocities with socialism (and consequently draw similarities between Nazi Germany and Communist Russia or Communist North Korea or Communist China) I have no idea?

    I agree that there are some very unreasonable people out there who are not willing to face facts, but Bourdeiu's position takes a particular brand of head-in-sand stubbornness that is rare, even among ivory-tower intellectuals.

    Elliot
    There has been a lot of people who have been snared by pure socialism. The problem is that it is an Idealistic view. I can spot that thinking in the discourse they use. They never complete a proposition which is necessary to right reason, they only use euphemisms.

Not your question? Ask your question View similar questions

 

Question Tools Search this Question
Search this Question:

Advanced Search

Add your answer here.


Check out some similar questions!

Can Capitalism and Socialism co-exist? [ 25 Answers ]

My thinking is no, based on the following assumptions; what are yours? Free market capitalism is based upon inherent individual rights while socialism is based on government-granted special privileges.


View more questions Search