capitalism vs. socialism

Dec 2018
2,605
1,595
Unionville Indiana
No hurt feelings here. I pointed out where he was right and where he was not. And then you responded to my critique...oh wait.
Robert Reich couldn't have been more spot on about modern conservatism. (And Spencer had no objections to private charities.)

Spencer viewed private charity positively, encouraging both voluntary association and informal care to aid those in need, rather than relying on government bureaucracy or force. He further recommended that private charitable efforts would be wise to avoid encouraging the formation of new dependent families by those unable to support themselves without charity. -- Offer, John (2006). An Intellectual History of British Social Policy. Bristol: Policy Press. pp. 38, 142. ISBN 1-86134-530-5.
 
Last edited:
Feb 2018
1,595
943
Oregon
Recall can't understand why so many people have a problem separating the concepts of "socialism" and "socialized." Cuba has socialism. Something like Social Security is a socialized pension system.
Well, for once we agree. The two are different.
 
Feb 2018
1,595
943
Oregon
Robert Reich couldn't have been more spot on about modern conservatism.
I wish this effort to redefine everything would STOP. First it was "liberal" and "liberalism", then it was "fascism", and now it's "conservative" and "conservatism". (I skipped a few things along the way.)
"Modern conservatism" is not conservatism. It is right wing extremism and there is NOTHING "conservative" about it. It doesn't advocate conserving anything.
 
Dec 2018
2,605
1,595
Unionville Indiana
I wish this effort to redefine everything would STOP. First it was "liberal" and "liberalism", then it was "fascism", and now it's "conservative" and "conservatism". (I skipped a few things along the way.)
"Modern conservatism" is not conservatism. It is right wing extremism and there is NOTHING "conservative" about it. It doesn't advocate conserving anything.
How about just the "modern right wing"? (I was using Reich's and Galbraith's terminology.)
 
May 2019
244
26
US
Robert Reich couldn't have been more spot on about modern conservatism. (And Spencer had no objections to private charities.)

Spencer viewed private charity positively, encouraging both voluntary association and informal care to aid those in need, rather than relying on government bureaucracy or force. He further recommended that private charitable efforts would be wise to avoid encouraging the formation of new dependent families by those unable to support themselves without charity. -- Offer, John (2006). An Intellectual History of British Social Policy. Bristol: Policy Press. pp. 38, 142. ISBN 1-86134-530-5.
Spencer was a classical liberal who was one among many considered to be social Darwinists. That's why I pointed out (with links and quotes) that the general view of social Darwinism being against charity is an accurate one.
Beyond that, I critiqued Reichs quote. I demonstrated exactly where it is not spot. Repeating that it is spot on is a non-response.
It's fine though, even if you accepted my corrections of the common conservative position, you would likely still call it social Darwinism. That's because the purpose is slander, not debate. Which is why you might as well stick to "Nazi".
 
Last edited:
Dec 2018
2,605
1,595
Unionville Indiana
Spencer was a classical liberal who was one among many considered to be social Darwinists. That's why I pointed out (with links and quotes) that the general view of social Darwinism being against charity is an accurate one.
Beyond that, I critiqued Reichs quote. I demonstrated exactly where it is not spot. Repeating that it is spot on is a non-response.
Define a "classical liberal"? Spencer's positive view of charities was no different than many of his followers.

Here's my understanding of term: In the late 19th century, classical liberalism developed into neo-classical liberalism, which argued for government to be as small as possible to allow the exercise of individual freedom. In its most extreme form, neo-classical liberalism advocated social Darwinism.[23] Right-libertarianism is a modern form of neo-classical liberalism.[23]
 
Last edited:
May 2019
244
26
US
Define a "classical liberal"? Spencer's positive view of charities was no different than many of his followers.
Define "Social Darwinism". Or don't. It's sufficient that Wikipedia describes him as "a prominent classical liberal political theorist" as well as a social Darwinists.
Wikipedia also points out, in the article on social Darwinism, that it fell out of favor after WWII and it's association with the Nazis, so that it is most commonly used as a term of disparagement. So, as I said, you might as well stick to calling people Nazis, unless you want to engage. But to do that you would need to address where I pointed out how your quote misses the mark.
Oh, I also saw that William Jennings Bryan, a prominent creationist reject social Darwinism as a logical consequence of Darwinism, which he rejected. In keeping with your method of applying the opinion of one man to that of everyone in a broad schoolof thought, Bryon alone proves Reich wrong. In much the same way Spencer alone proves me wrong.
 
Dec 2018
2,605
1,595
Unionville Indiana
Define "Social Darwinism". Or don't. It's sufficient that Wikipedia describes him as "a prominent classical liberal political theorist" as well as a social Darwinists.
Wikipedia also points out, in the article on social Darwinism, that it fell out of favor after WWII and it's association with the Nazis, so that it is most commonly used as a term of disparagement. So, as I said, you might as well stick to calling people Nazis, unless you want to engage. But to do that you would need to address where I pointed out how your quote misses the mark.
Oh, I also saw that William Jennings Bryan, a prominent creationist reject social Darwinism as a logical consequence of Darwinism, which he rejected. In keeping with your method of applying the opinion of one man to that of everyone in a broad schoolof thought, Bryon alone proves Reich wrong. In much the same way Spencer alone proves me wrong.
Do you disagree with Reich's characterization of modern right wing/right libertarian philosophy?: Allow the virtuous rich to keep more of their earnings and pay less in taxes, and they'll be even more virtuous. Give the non-virtuous poor food stamps, Medicaid, and what's left of welfare, and they'll fall into deeper moral torpor.

If so, how is Reich off base? I hear the right wing say things like this all the time.
 
May 2019
244
26
US
Define "Social Darwinism". Or don't. It's sufficient that Wikipedia describes him as "a prominent classical liberal political theorist" as well as a social Darwinists.
Wikipedia also points out, in the article on social Darwinism, that it fell out of favor after WWII and it's association with the Nazis, so that it is most commonly used as a term of disparagement. So, as I said, you might as well stick to calling people Nazis, unless you want to engage. But to do that you would need to address where I pointed out how your quote misses the mark.
Oh, I also saw that William Jennings Bryan, a prominent creationist reject social Darwinism as a logical consequence of Darwinism, which he rejected. In keeping with your method of applying the opinion of one man to that of everyone in a broad schoolof thought, Bryon alone proves Reich wrong. In much the same way Spencer alone proves me wrong.
Define a "classical liberal"? Spencer's positive view of charities was no different than many of his followers.

Here's my understanding of term: In the late 19th century, classical liberalism developed into neo-classical liberalism, which argued for government to be as small as possible to allow the exercise of individual freedom. In its most extreme form, neo-classical liberalism advocated social Darwinism.[23] Right-libertarianism is a modern form of neo-classical liberalism.[23]
The point I made was awhile ago, and you would likely prefer to continue ignoring it in favor of your masterwork of demonstrating that there was a social darwinist who liked charity. Nonetheless, here is my point again, just in case you ever decide to address it:


Most conservatives don't fear making the virtuous wealthy less virtuous by taking wealth. They simply view transfer of wealth as more vicious than virtuous.

There may be slightly more of an argument for the other part though. Some conservative positions are concerned with enhancing the vice of those on the receiving end of public assistance.

However, the conservative position is only seen as an embrace of social Darwinism from the left looking right (to disparage rather than engage). The religious right tend to be exceedingly charitable, which undermines the idea that they embrace social Darwinism From their perspective. Prodominant views anyway. Spencer notwithstanding.