I am late coming back to this because I've had a lot going on, and this reply will have to be relatively brief for the same reason.
Social Equality is a system of relationships where everyone has equivalent privileges and status, which can only exist in a classless society.
Okay, that would be one definition, and it is a good one. On the surface, ideally speaking, I like it. However, I think in practice it would be impractical to try to enforce this. If everyone were the same, wanted the same things in the same amounts to the same degree, it would work, but this is not the reality of human nature and human relationships.
I don't think it is against human nature at all. I think that it tends to go against White Anglo-Saxon Protestant modern thinking, acting, and structural beliefs about the way society "has" to be ordered. Yet, many cultures are far more comfortable with with my view of Social Equality and WASP's would be as well, if they would look beyond the short-term and really begin to see society as important.
Social Justice is concerned with two primary areas: the Life and Diginity of the human person, and the development of a classless society to eradicate poverty.
Life, dignity and the eradication of poverty, these are things with which I am also concerned, and which I think are addressed better with liberty and trade than with socialism. Personally, I am less concerned with the existence of classes than I am with making them barrier-less. I don't care if there is a wealthy class so long as there is nothing to stop people from getting there, which to me, is the same thing as having no classes, because then there will be a range of financial levels and there will be no single distinct class. We are, as a society, slowly getting to that point. I'm not saying there are not problems or that there are no poor. There are, but I think those problems will be better addressed by more liberty not less and by more trade not less.
But it isn't the same thing. Whenever there is a massive accumulation of wealth then there is also deprivation. There is only so much capital possible at any given time. This is why economists dislike a high public sector to GDP spending ratio. It means that the capital left for the private sector is lower than they believe it should be - i.e. investments cannot be made because it is tied into public sector spending (the opposing argument would be made by Keynesian economists). The point being that there is only so much wealth to be had at any given time. So the barriers exist whether you wish they didn't or not. With democracy, as we have it those with the most accumulated wealth also have the most influence. Sure we need more liberty, but until we achieve a socialist, classless society - that liberty is nothing but the scraps that the elite wishes to grant us. Look at Jefferson's "self-evident" truths! All men are created equal? In this country? It wasn't true when he wrote it and it is not the case now. Not only is it not self-evident, it was pure unadulterated horse shite.
I disagree. The problem comes from trying to force a redistribution of wealth that punishes people for surpassing some arbitrary limit of "unfair".
Why is it a punishment to come together and help your fellow man by developing a nation, a world, free of poverty? Free of hunger? With healthcare, education, and guaranteed employement for all?
Heh. Cute. I did not say punishing people for coming together to help others. I'm not against that and you know it. I am 100% for people coming together to help others, and if I like your group of people coming together to help others I'll even join you and help if possible. The problem is not people coming together, is not even persuading people to come together to help others. The problem is forcing other people who disagree with you to participate in your agenda whether or not they want to do so. The problem is punishing people for surpassing some arbitrary limit of "unfair" economic success.
What punishment? Either we are equal or we are not. My problem is that you are calling it punishment, and I don't see it as that. In a classless society this idea of accumulating wealth at the expense of society becomes an irrelevancy. It is not punishment because it is not there's, yours, or mine any longer.
The problem there is with Nietzschean concepts of individualism that disregard society.
That might be a problem for some, but not for me. I do not hold concepts of individualism that disregard society. My concepts of individualism embrace the notion of society, of people working together, of protecting society by protecting the individual. I'm not out to strengthen in individual at the expense of society. I believe that if we strengthen the individual, meaning not one person only but all individuals as individuals, then we will by extension strengthen society. Society is, after all, a collection of individuals.
That is a paraphrase of a famous quote by Maggie Thatcher, and more wrong a person could not be. Though, I will credit you for not entirely dismissing the notion of society completely. It is interesting that you breakdown society into the components of individuals. I tend to think of individuals as a reflection of society, among other factors.
There are some very successful companies owned by the customers and others owned by the employees. I agree with you, of course, on the issue of trade, labor, and the relationship of mega-corporations with the government. Yet, I'm realistic too. That is democracy. It may not be textbook democracy for wide-eyed high school American History students, but it is the grotesque reality whether one is a Democrat, Republican, Labour Party, Conservative Party, SPD, or CDU/CSU, Liberal, NDP, or Tories. That is part of the Neoliberal Consensus. That is part of Capitalism's reign.
I do not agree. Corporations partnering with government to control industry and business is not democracy. And frankly, imo, it is not capitalism either. I support capitalism, but I do not support the anti-capitalistic, competition and market stifling partnership between corporations and government. We do not have it because it part of capitalism. We have it because it is part of what happens when people cede power to the government. When we demand government regulate to the degree that we have, the partnering of corporations and government is inevitable. We will not solve this by demanding government do more, the partnership will only grow stronger.
No, this is capitalism and the democracy it has created. Even worse is the horrible discrimination that on your best day you must admit has been a serious black eye to capitalist nations. Still today, both in the public and private sectors an individual is limited in her advancement for no other reason than she is a woman, or black, or came from a poor background. In this very country! We kept up trade with white racist South Africa for years, and why? Because we had far too much corporate investment not to. Not to mention all the politicians who winked and nodded (Reagan and Thatcher) at how domestic affairs were handled there.
Socialism promotes that the people establish control within a classless society. There is no ruling elite or bourgeoisie. (In fairness there are different schools of socialism, as with libertarianism, so I'm going to address my views as I suspect you will do with your own views.) The works councils will govern and democracy will be paramount, without the hindrances placed on it by social status.
Okay, but I do not see how we get there by giving the government more power. That seems the opposite of giving power to the people. Giving the government more power and authority, with less and less in the hands of individuals seems to me the opposite of empowering the workers.
Who is claiming to give the government more power? Socialism can only come through the people. It cannot be achieved through Congresses and Parliaments.
Capitalism most certainly promotes inequality. The data has proven this with the rising Gini Coefficients over time for most western nations (with the exception of Scandinavia). The United States ranks with Cameroon and Uruguay. Denmark, Belgium, Sweden, Norway are the top in equality by Gini Coefficient standards and notably have larger welfare states than the United States (or Cameroon or Uruguay).
Okay, that would be income inequality, which, to my thinking, is not the same as social inequality. Apparently you equate the two. I do not. Which is why, when we speak of social inequality and/or social equity, I think pointing out that there are different ideas about what that means is important.
As I said above, it is more than income inequality. Capitalism has given monumental strength to racial, gender, and other types of inequalities.
Your comparison is still flawed. The former is based on mysticism, the latter on scientific socialism. Claiming the same goal is irrelevant in your attempt to make the two equivalent. You could say that a shaman and a medical doctor are both trying to heal a patient. That does not make the two equivalent to one another, though their goal is identical. Your logic is flawed and you're better than smear tactics.
You say this after claiming that your definitions of social equality and social justice come, at least in part, from Christian tradition. So think perhaps the comparison is not so far off as you would make out. And from my perspective, to keep this comparison according to my thinking, the shaman and the medical doctor do not have the same goal. The shaman wants to get rid of evil spirits while the medical doctor is going to treat physical problems. The Christian fundamentalist and the socialist (the Michael Tee style socialist at least) want to do the same thing. It's like two medical doctors having different approaches to the same problem. They both want to fix society through control even if their ideas about how are somewhat different. The fundamentalist Christians, at least the kind I'm talking about this discussion, are not looking to shake talismans and shout evil spirits away from society. They want to enact practical (in the sense of actual rather than mystical) controls on society to correct the problems they believe exist in society. The socialists (again, the Michael Tee style socialist at least) want to enact practical controls on society to correct the problems they believe exist in society. And I oppose both for the same basic reason, I don't believe society can be fixed by trying to strictly control it. So from my perspective, the comparison is valid.
Again, there are different types of socialists. If you want to discuss that with Tee, then you need to ask him.
Who says there is no room for dissent?
When you call or at least imply that disagreeing with socialism is somehow not wanting to "to come together and help your fellow man by developing a nation, a world, free of poverty" that doesn't really leave a lot of room for dissent. So you tell me, is there room for a capitalist dissent in a socialist society? Is there room for libertarianism in a socialist society? Doesn't a socialist society depend a great deal upon everyone agreeing with (at least in general) socialism?
There are anarcho-communists, so I'd certainly say that libertarians have a place. The freedom of individuals is an interesting topic amongst socialists and communists. Some believe the government (commune, works councils, whatever form it is) should have absolutely no role in private individual lives. Others, like myself, believe that it is the responsibility of the works councils to ensure that some basic principles and societal norms are maintained. Personally, I don't think capitalism should exist once classlessness is achieved, as it is an economic mechanism that promotes class. Yet, remember that socialism can only exist after capitalism has achieved its peak.
Socialism removes the system by which the elite attain their advantages. It also removes the system by which the bourgeoisie live what Pink Floyd would call a "comfortably numb" existence. It removes any reason for nationalism and the wars that erupt from that. People are people. They are no longer their assets, their vehicles, their possessions, their ability to delegate power over other people.
I confess, I have hard time believing it could accomplish all that. That sounds altogether utopian to me. So tell me why it isn't.
There are utopian elements, sure, but it isn't utopian because there is a legitimate understanding of how those structures work to affect society.
Sure, liberty is real to those who have been locked away or enslaved. But we're not really talking the same "liberty" there, are we? This is a bit disengenuous of the libertarian. In fact, this only goes to prove the point more. The Government of our time can grant liberty, or it can take it away (jail, slavery). That was my point above. There is no, what Thomas Jefferson called, "self-evident truths." There is no liberty that exists for all men. So long as class exists, there is no real freedom for the majority of mankind. Who has real political power? Who has real freedom and authority? George Bush, John Kerry, Vladimir Putin, or you?
"The Government of our time can grant liberty, or it can take it away (jail, slavery)." Indeed. But it can also make laws that confine human action. A slave that has free movement and self will on the plantation is still a slave. A citizen who must conform his actions to the regulations of government (beyond those laws that protect basic human rights) or the worker council is not living in liberty. Okay, so you don't agree that Jefferson's self-evident truths are self-evident. But Jefferson was one of many men who felt their liberty was unduly confined by their government. Do all people have the same degree of liberty? No. In some ways I have more liberty than the people you named because I don't have the responsibilities of government. I have more liberty than people in the military, but then right now we have a volunteer military, so those people chose to be in the military. Should the rest of society be made to live at the military to be fair, to keep those of us not in the military from having more liberty? But what about the poor? Don't think I want to see them limited. And I'm not saying all poor people choose to be poor. Certainly I want to see poor get help to improve their financial states and to have access to health care and decent shelter and all that, but I also think people ought to have the liberty to choose a level of financial achievement that suits them. Some people want a lot. Some people want a little. Some want something in between. I see no reason to interfere in that liberty. If you take that away, that is not social equality or social justice, imo.
The problem with your explanation is that you place every individual in a vacuum as if one's actions has no consequences on another. Slavery in the United States had consequences that still exist to this very day. The mega-wealthy living opulent lifestyles have consequences. The modern notion of individualism and low taxation has consequences, especially on the poor. Someone "reaching the level of financial achievement that suits them" sounds nice on its face, but is it really? What are the consequences? Who did he step on and over?[/quote]
