Instigator / Pro
0
1294
rating
75
debates
18.0%
won
Topic
#1409
John Stewart Mills was an ethical Socialist in the end
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
After not so many votes...
It's a tie!
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 5
- Time for argument
- Two days
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- Two weeks
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Con
0
1702
rating
574
debates
67.86%
won
Description
Ethical socialism is an important ideology of the British Labour Party. Labour Prime Minister Clement Attlee supported the ideology, which played a large role in his party's policies during the postwar 1940s.[26] Half a century after Attlee's tenure, Tony Blair, another Labour Prime Minister, also described himself as an adherent of ethical socialism, which for him embodies the values of "social justice, the equal worth of each citizen, equality of opportunity, community".[27] Influenced by Attlee and John Macmurray (who himself was influenced by Green),[28] Blair has defined the ideology in similar terms as earlier adherents—with an emphasis on the common good, rights and responsibilities as well as support of an organic society in which individuals flourish through cooperation.[28] Blair argued that Labour ran into problems in the 1960s and 1970s when it abandoned ethical socialism and that its recovery required a return to the values promoted by the Attlee government.[6] However, Blair's critics (both inside and outside Labour) have accused him of completely abandoning socialism in favour of capitalism.
Political democracy
Mill's major work on political democracy, Considerations on Representative Government, defends two fundamental principles: extensive participation by citizens and enlightened competence of rulers.[82] The two values are obviously in tension, and some readers have concluded that he is an elitist democrat,[83] while others count him as an earlier participatory democrat.[84] In one section he appears to defend plural voting, in which more competent citizens are given extra votes (a view he later repudiated). But in chapter 3 he presents what is still one of the most eloquent cases for the value of participation by all citizens. He believed that the incompetence of the masses could eventually be overcome if they were given a chance to take part in politics, especially at the local level.
Mill is one of the few political philosophers ever to serve in government as an elected official. In his three years in Parliament, he was more willing to compromise than the "radical" principles expressed in his writing would lead one to expect.[85]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Stuart_Mill#Political_democracy His main objection of socialism was on that of what he saw its destruction of competition stating, "I utterly dissent from the most conspicuous and vehement part of their teaching – their declamations against competition." Mill was an egalitarian, but he argued more so for equal opportunity and placed meritocracy above all other ideals in this regard. According to Mill, a socialist society would only be attainable through the provision of basic education for all, promoting economic democracy instead of capitalism, in the manner of substituting capitalist businesses with worker cooperatives. He says:
The form of association, however, which if mankind continue to improve, must be expected in the end to predominate, is not that which can exist between a capitalist as chief, and work-people without a voice in the management, but the association of the labourers themselves on terms of equality, collectively owning the capital with which they carry on their operations, and working under managers elected and removable by themselves.[80][8https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Stuart_Mill#Economic_democracy John Stuart Mill, influential 19th century English thinker of liberalism who adopted some socialist views
Round 1
it is a fact that John Stewart mills abandoned classical liberalism when he saw the suffering of the working class , but would not embrace marxism as he felt competition was good and coercion was bad and formulated his own form of social democracy
Is 'ethical Socialism' the thing he believed in or was he ethical, and then also a Socialist?
I am at a loss as what is being proven here. Pro has to define the resolution. At the moment it's undefined. If Pro continues to refuse to clarify what the words mean and what qualifies someone as an ethical Socialist, I will bring strong arguments in R2, no problem.
Round 2
Ethical Socialism was a specific type of Socialism synonomous with liberal socialism and social democracy all of which john stewart mills played a part in thical socialism is a political philosophy that appeals to socialism on ethical and moral grounds as opposed to economic, egoistic, and consumeristic grounds.[1] It emphasizes the need for a morally conscious economy based upon the principles of altruism, cooperation, and social justice while opposing possessive individualism.[2] In contrast to socialism inspired by rationalism, historical materialism, neoclassical economics, and Marxist theory which base their appeals for socialism on grounds of economic efficiency, rationality, or historical inevitability, ethical socialism focuses on the moral and ethical reasons for advocating socialism.[ci
The main liberal English thinker John Stuart Mill's early economic philosophy was one of free markets. However, he accepted interventions in the economy, such as a tax on alcohol, if there were sufficient utilitarian grounds. He also accepted the principle of legislative intervention for the purpose of animal welfare.[11] Mill originally believed that "equality of taxation" meant "equality of sacrifice" and that progressive taxation penalised those who worked harder and saved more and was therefore "a mild form of robbery".[12]
Given an equal tax rate regardless of income, Mill agreed that inheritance should be taxed. A utilitarian society would agree that everyone should be equal one way or another. Therefore, receiving inheritance would put one ahead of society unless taxed on the inheritance. Those who donate should consider and choose carefully where their money goes—some charities are more deserving than others. Considering public charities boards such as a government will disburse the money equally. However, a private charity board like a church would disburse the monies fairly to those who are in more need than others.[13]
Given an equal tax rate regardless of income, Mill agreed that inheritance should be taxed. A utilitarian society would agree that everyone should be equal one way or another. Therefore, receiving inheritance would put one ahead of society unless taxed on the inheritance. Those who donate should consider and choose carefully where their money goes—some charities are more deserving than others. Considering public charities boards such as a government will disburse the money equally. However, a private charity board like a church would disburse the monies fairly to those who are in more need than others.[13]
Socialism's elements were a means to an end for John Mills, the ethics of Socialism weren't the end of Capitalist means
The only time where John Mills ever alluded in one singular way to being an ethical Socialist was in saying people should carefully pick which charities they give to. That is the sole way that he was an ethical Socialist. He never ever would support true government welfare for the poor (regardless of how good a charity advertises their particular form of suffering-alleviation).
Competition and meritocracy (and the freedom to do so without any restraints) is why he wants inheritance taxed. If you would look at your reasoning, it all backfires (the entirety of Pro's previous Round is pasted after the first sentence, from two totally different Wikipedia articles).
The Wikipedia article on John Mills extremely blatantly has been written by a Socialist. I know exactly why Socialists want to call Mills one of theirs, it's because they don't understand the limitations of their own political ideology and want to believe that anyone who is torn between Capitalism in its pure form and Socialism in its pure form, is automatically a Socialist if they seem 'good' and a Capitalist posing as Socialist if they seem 'bad'.
His main objection of socialism was on that of what he saw its destruction of competition stating, "I utterly dissent from the most conspicuous and vehement part of their teaching – their declamations against competition." Mill was an egalitarian, but he argued more so for equal opportunity and placed meritocracy above all other ideals in this regard. According to Mill, a socialist society would only be attainable through the provision of basic education for all, promoting economic democracy instead of capitalism, in the manner of substituting capitalist businesses with worker cooperatives. He says:The form of association, however, which if mankind continue to improve, must be expected in the end to predominate, is not that which can exist between a capitalist as chief, and work-people without a voice in the management, but the association of the labourers themselves on terms of equality, collectively owning the capital with which they carry on their operations, and working under managers elected and removable by themselves- Principles of Political Economy with some of their Applications to Social Philosophy, IV.7.21 John Stuart Mill: Political Economy, IV.7.21- Thompson, Dennis. John Stuart Mill and Representative Government. Princeton University Press, 1976. ISBN 978-0691021874
- Check under the quoted section for sourcing for the quote being his.
Meritocracy is essentially the following:
a social system, society, or organization in which people get success or power because of their abilities, not because of their money or social position
1: a system in which the talented are chosen and moved ahead on the basis of their achievement2: leadership selected on the basis of intellectual criteria
I have come across Socialists who identify as Mmetirocrats before. I noticed that every single one was a very amoral type in general, wanting either robots to dictate the net-value of everyone in a system other than money and even in this day and age, this is actually done in China's form of socialism.
Feel free to click the 'blue words' inside the quotes for further expansion and sourcing on the matter in specific areas.
Sourcing done via http://www.citethisforme.com/
In 2020, China will fully roll out its controversial social credit score. Under the system, both financial behaviors like “frivolous spending” and bad behaviors like lighting up in smoke-free zones can result in stiff consequences. Penalties include loss of employment and educational opportunities, as well as transportation restrictions. Those with high scores get perks, like discounts on utility bills and faster application processes to travel abroad.China is currently piloting the program and some citizens have already found themselves banned from traveling or attending certain schools due to low scores. These ramifications have led to a flurry of recent criticism from both human rights groups and the press. This week alone, news outlets like Business Insider and National Public Radio weighed in on China’s social credit score and the stratified society it may foster in the communist country.
- Nittle, N. (2018). Spend "frivolously" and be penalized under China’s new social credit system. [online] Vox. Available at: https://www.vox.com/the-goods/2018/11/2/18057450/china-social-credit-score-spend-frivolously-video-games [Accessed 21 Sep. 2019].
For the past couple of years a big story about the future of China has been the focus of both fascination and horror. It is all about what the authorities in Beijing call “social credit”, and the kind of surveillance that is now within governments’ grasp. The official rhetoric is poetic. According to the documents, what is being developed will “allow the trustworthy to roam everywhere under heaven while making it hard for the discredited to take a single step”.As China moves into the newly solidified President Xi Jinping era, the basic plan is intended to be in place by 2020. Some of it will apply to businesses and officials, so as to address corruption and tackle such high-profile issues as poor food hygiene. But other elements will be focused on ordinary individuals, so that transgressions such as
- Harris, J. (2018). The tyranny of algorithms is part of our lives: soon they could rate everything we do | John Harris. [online] the Guardian. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/mar/05/algorithms-rate-credit-scores-finances-data [Accessed 21 Sep. 2019].
Eric Schmidt, who was a corrupt Google CEO (owned around 40% of the company single handedly out of his own pocket, based on what the corrupt investors were giving him. So, you may say 'ah but that's Capitalism posing as Socialism' but you're missing the point. He was mainly caught out for supporting the censored 'bubble of Internet' that China shows its people if they don't use VPN (which it actively curtails in its tyranny).
It is often a natural extension of a non-ethical Socialist's outlook to say 'well if money shouldn't dictate hierarchy and success in life, what should... Oh yes, I should! So, it begins with opposing inheritcance, as he insisted on doing, but extends to far more things in life than you first assume a Socialist would want to control, if they were the 'ethical' brand of it. It would mean we can't possibly be free to raise our children how we want; upbringing would give unfair advantage and disadvantage. Much like Socialism/Communism in practice every single time it ever is introduced, an Elite that isn't equal to the rest ends up making everyone who doesn't serve its agenda suffer. The aim is to make everyone 'equal' in their agony and powerlessness, such that then any achievements are meritocratic or so it is thought. In stifling freedom of religion, art and raising your children any unique way at all (we'd all need to same cars too, otherwise we may be able to get to work faster or feel sexier hormonally altering the ability we have at work), we'd reach a stage where the only thing separating the elite from the enslaved is how willing to be enslaved that the Elite are. The curious thing about horseshoe wing theory is how it's actually the Left Wing with their rigid ethos of stopping any Elite, that most brutally ensure there is one with even less social mobility (vertically up the classes) than is possible in extreme Right Wing societies. In extreme Capitalism, you have a lot of unfairness but it's still possible, with charm, wit and yes a little luck, to move up the classes by hard and smart work. In extreme Socialism, it's impossible; you need to be born knowing the right people to even have a chance to ever truly meet the 'control team'.
Meritocracy is, in its brutal 'competition as an absolute' form, not ethical Socialism but this is wholeheartedly what John Mills supported. You cannot appeal to Socialism from a standpoint of brutal, unbridled comepetition whereby the winners 'really are superior to the losers' and call yourself ethical. The dilemma is twofold:
1. Either competition is evil and has many unwanted side effects that need patching in Socialist manner to ethical ends
OR
2. Competition in its ruthless, unadultered form is the ends to achieve and certain elements of Socialism merely are the means to evening the playing field in the eyes of one doing it, away from unfair advantages of any preventable kind.
Thus, it was with Capitalism and right wing ethos that John Mills sought to employ Socialist means. He wanted competition without the 'gutters' (bowling reference), no safety wheels, no fallback;
You could sum up his mentally with:
just fight it out and if you're a loser, let's make things fair enough for you to either work your way out or stay poor like the dumb, weak and/or lazy being that the meritocracy has deemed you to be.
- my depiction of 'Socialist meritocracy'
Round 3
Ethical Socialism is just that socialist values, the idea that injustices in the capitalist system may be achieved by reform of not the abolition of capitalism that is exactly the definition of ethical Socialism we are not talking about marxism here at all i mede that clear from the start
He was not an ethical Socialist.
John Stuart (not Stewart) Mill (not Mills) was an individual who saw Socialist policy and mechanics as a possible way to make Capitalist ideals and ethics of competition and 'winner deserves to win and stay on top of society' as an end goal, an achievable thing.
Round 4
"John Stuart Mill (1806–1873) in On Liberty (1859) and in his Principles of Political Economy (1848) presents a mixture of humane and radical liberalism that is still relevant to reformers of the present age. His argument for an open and free society, opposed to collectivist and totalitarian systems, has never been decisively refuted. Never an adherent of pure laissez-faire capitalism, he nonetheless avoided doctrinaire socialism and sought to reform industrial capitalism by respecting individual autonomy, competition, and human diversity." Ethical Socialism and Liberal Socialism and Christian Socialism, are much the same and are all very different from totalitarian forms of marxism, but they are Socialism by a dictionary definiton
"The two major targets of Mill’s social criticism of industrial society were the maldistribution of property and the oppressive system of industrial organization. First, to remedy the inequitable system of rewards, Mill favored a reform of inheritance taxes that would diffuse wealth. His radical social justice, however, was not egalitarian; he condemned the inheritance of large fortunes for its undeservedness and for the threat to liberty posed by huge concentrations of wealth. Secondly, Mill opposed the type of industrial organization in which few owners of capital stand in an authoritarian relationship to voiceless wage-earners. This system, he believed, could only stultify the wage-earners’ growth into responsible, autonomous individuals and institutionalize a conflict of class interests. He therefore advocated competitive syndicalism, an association of workers who collectively owned, managed, and profited from capital. Avoiding socialism, Mill encouraged the private property transfer rights of such workers’ shares in industry, and he welcomed competition as a spur to innovation and efficiency."
"Mill’s liberalism was radically decentralist and anti-statist. He feared the growth of the state for the same reasons he feared the accumulation of private power. Unlike orthodox socialism, he insisted on the “need for political devolution and the diffusion of power and initiative within the great entrenched institutions of our society.” Although advocating the redistribution of property, he shied away from a levelling egalitarianism built upon bureaucratic centralism. Finally, in his favoring of a no-growth economy, he differed from both capitalists and socialists since he did not project an everlasting technological abundance. Whatever the merits of his reform proposals, Mill was not seduced into welcoming a democratic tyranny of the majority or sacrificing his devotion to individual diversity."
https://www.libertarianism.org/publications/essays/mill-liberal-or-socialist Ethical socialism is a political philosophy that appeals to socialism on ethical and moral grounds as opposed to economic, egoistic, and consumeristic grounds.[1] It emphasizes the need for a morally conscious economy based upon the principles of altruism, cooperation, and social justice while opposing possessive individualism.[2] In contrast to socialism inspired by rationalism, historical materialism, neoclassical economics, and Marxist theory which base their appeals for socialism on grounds of economic efficiency, rationality, or historical inevitability, ethical socialism focuses on the moral and ethical reasons for advocating socialism.[citation needed]
John Stuart Mill[edit]
John Stuart Mill, influential 19th century English thinker of liberalism who adopted some socialist views
Given an equal tax rate regardless of income, Mill agreed that inheritance should be taxed. A utilitarian society would agree that everyone should be equal one way or another. Therefore, receiving inheritance would put one ahead of society unless taxed on the inheritance. Those who donate should consider and choose carefully where their money goes—some charities are more deserving than others. Considering public charities boards such as a government will disburse the money equally. However, a private charity board like a church would disburse the monies fairly to those who are in more need than others.[13]
Mill later altered his views toward a more socialist bent, adding chapters to his Principles of Political Economy in defence of a socialist outlook and defending some socialist causes.[14] Within this revised work, he also made the radical proposal that the whole wage system be abolished in favour of a co-operative wage system. Nonetheless, some of his views on the idea of flat taxation remained,[15] albeit altered in the third edition of the Principles of Political Economy to reflect a concern for differentiating restrictions on "unearned" incomes, which he favoured; and those on "earned" incomes, which he did not favour.[16]
Mill's Principles of Political Economy, first published in 1848, was one of the most widely read of all books on economics in the period.[17] As Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations had during an earlier period, Mill's Principles of Economy dominated economics teaching. In the case of Oxford University, it was the standard text until 1919 when it was replaced by Alfred Marshall's Principles of Economics.
At some point, Mill also promoted substituting capitalist businesses with worker cooperatives, saying:
The form of association, however, which if mankind continue to improve, must be expected in the end to predominate, is not that which can exist between a capitalist as chief, and work-people without a voice in the management, but the association of the labourers themselves on terms of equality, collectively owning the capital with which they carry on their operations, and working under managers elected and removable by themselves.[18]Christian socialism is a form of religious socialism based on the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth. Many Christian socialists believe capitalism to be idolatrous and rooted in greed, which some Christian denominations consider a mortal sin.[1] Christian socialists identify the cause of inequality to be the greed that they associate with capitalism.[1]Liberal socialism has exercised influence in British politics, especially in the variant known as ethical socialism.[19][20] A key component of ethical socialism is in its emphasis on moral and ethical critiques of capitalism and building a case for socialism on moral or spiritual grounds as opposed to rationalist and materialist grounds. Ethical socialists advocated a mixed economy that involves an acceptance of a role of both public enterprise as well as socially responsible private enterprise.[4] Ethical socialism was founded by Christian socialist R. H. Tawney and its ideals were also connected to Fabian and guild-socialist values.[21
Christian socialism became a major movement in the United Kingdom beginning in the 19th century. The Christian Socialist Movement, since 2013 known as Christians on the Left, is one formal group.[1]
Other earlier figures are also viewed as Christian socialists, such as the nineteenth century writers Frederick Denison Maurice (The Kingdom of Christ, 1838), John Ruskin (Unto This Last, 1862), Charles Kingsley (The Water-Babies, 1863), Thomas Hughes (Tom Brown's Schooldays, 1857), Frederick James Furnivall (co-creator of the Oxford English Dictionary), Adin Ballou (Practical Christian Socialism, 1854), and Francis Bellamy (a Baptist minister and the author of the United States' Pledge of Allegiance).https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_socialism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page Sol like experts said mILLS INVENTED HIS OWN WEIRD VERSION OF SOCIALISM so i'm right
The entire copy-pasted rant on Mill, doesn't explain a thing about why I am wrong.
The Ethical Socialist uses the means of Capitalism (at times) to achieve the end of Socialism. The end-goal that he had in mind was one of brutal, unbridled competition. His only reasoning behind using Socialist policy was to enable the poor to be able to compete with the rich and mercilessly drag them to the bottom of the pit if they were incompetent.
John Stuart Mill was a harsh, utilitarian Social Darwinian, who believed that Capitalism backfires if you don't begin to do things like tax inheritance.
An Ethical Socialist uses ethics to justify Socialist endgame by means that aren't necessarily Socialist. JSM was the polar opposite of that.
Round 5
yes it does thats why i copied and pasted it read it again
Inverse of ethical socialist.
rant is a loaded term and basically nothing but name calling