Incidentally, I’m not in favor of “big government” or whatever conventional view of current-say liberals you want to ascribe to me. I’m just not fooled by the myths of free markets, individualism, and “liberty” offered by neoliberals as justification for the massive transfer of wealth that’s occurred these last 40 years. — Xtrix

I don't think what created this massive transfer of wealth is a result of classical liberal ideas.

It seems to me the result of big business jumping into bed with corrupt, bureaucratic government in an unholy alliance against the common man - crony capitalism.

By steadily feeding the beast for decades, we've created the worst of both worlds. Government spending in the US is now equal to roughly 30% of GDP. As far as classical liberal ideas go, this state of affairs could hardly be more antithetical.

You understand that competition entails using power to compete? — Tzeentch

Same as government's. — Isaac

This has already been answered.

The government will not let you compete.

For example, it's quite conceivable that if you lived in a small rural town far away from law enforcement, a local protection service would serve you better than what the state provides.

Now lets say the people in the town want you to offer this service, and you have a group of burly, armed men who are willing to provide it, then that would seem like a perfectly good way to set up a business.

However, the government will not let you do this. It will throw you jail, and punish you for even trying.

You say this is the same as what a hypothetical bigger security company would do to you on the free market (ignoring for a moment the government's monopoly), but that's clearly not the case.

The only thing a bigger security firm could do in order to stop you is to compete with you. To offer better services at a lower cost, in order to persuade the townsfolk to voluntarily choose their services over the local services. It cannot force people to buy its services, force people to stop buying other services than theirs, or force people to stop offering their services - the government can.

If you want to keep asking questions in a discussion forum, don’t be surprised when you get answers. — NOS4A2

OK. What is the difference between Amazon competing for control over internet sales and government competing for control over violence?

You say one is a monopoly, the other isn't.

The government will not let you compete. — Tzeentch

This has already been answered. Your miserable lack of success at competing is not the same as the government not letting you compete. If you want some of the share of the ability to use violence, get a bigger army. Loser!

However, the government will not let you do this. It will throw you jail, and punish you for even trying. — Tzeentch

That's the competition. If your security force can't compete with the government's that's their weakness. Toughen up!

To offer better services at a lower cost, in order to persuade the townsfolk to voluntarily choose their services over the local services. — Tzeentch

Where do you get this garbage from? Have you been at the Ayn Rand again?

This has already been answered. Your miserable lack of success at competing is not the same as the government not letting you compete. — Isaac

That's the competition. If your security force can't compete with the government's that's their weakness. Toughen up! — Isaac

You don't seem to understand the idea a free market.

A free market is free of coercion. That's why we call it free.

What is the government doing to stop you from competing? Coercing you.

You don't seem to understand the idea a free market. — Tzeentch

I'm not talking about a free market. I'm talking about competition for the ability to use violence. You claim the government has a monopoly in that competition.

They don't. They're just doing better in it than you.

If you don't like the Thai government's laws, your only choice is vote or move.

If you don't like the Thai 'free market' insurance deals, your only choice is move. — Isaac

I think we're done here.

I think we're done here. — Tzeentch

What?

A random quote from pages back and we're done?

I've curated quite a number of odd ways to avoid conceding a point in an argument here (though curiously never "I see, you're right"), but this one is a corker.

This discussion was about the difference between how governments behaved and the free market. In fact, you brought it up.

Now you've been told the difference, and suddenly it is no longer about free markets. Funny how that works.

(though curiously never "I see, you're right") — Isaac

I guess that's your problem. Your tendency to resort to pedantics to try and "win" an argument has been noted, and not just by me.

This discussion was about the difference between how governments behaved and the free market. In fact, you brought it up. — Tzeentch

This discussion was about the difference between how 1 governments behaved and 2 the free market.

You see how that's two things, yes?

How governments maintain their control over the ability to use violence (1)

How corporations maintain their control over free markets (2)

You call (1) a monopoly because you failed to compete successfully of the ability to use violence.

You don't call (2) a monopoly when people fail to compete successfully for control of markets.

I'm asking why.

I don't think what created this massive transfer of wealth is a result of classical liberal ideas.

It seems to me the result of big business jumping into bed with corrupt, bureaucratic government in an unholy alliance against the common man - crony capitalism. — Tzeentch

Sure— and take a look at the rhetoric. All of it done under the guise of “Government is the problem” and “ the era of big government is over.” We have to shrink the government, because it’s to blame for everything. Deregulate, privatize, cut taxes, etc. We see the results.

Again, I’ll take the New Deal era, when the zeitgeist wasn’t dominated by Ayn Rand and Milton Friedman.

Sure— and take a look at the rhetoric. All of it done under the guise of “Government is the problem” and “ the era of big government is over.” We have to shrink the government, because it’s to blame for everything. Deregulate, privatize, cut taxes, etc. We see the results. — Xtrix

Well, I don't know about the rhetoric, but policy guided by classical liberalism hasn't been seen in the United States for a very long time.

Government spending in the US has been on a steady rise since the early 20th century and has never made any significant move towards the opposite. And that's no surprise, because that would derive a lot of powerful people of their power.

If politicians sell more government under the guise of less government, then that is a different problem.

Free market capitalism and libertarianism seem very popular patsies, but I don't think that's justified.

OK. What is the difference between Amazon competing for control over internet sales and government competing for control over violence?

You say one is a monopoly, the other isn't.

The government has jurisdiction in a given territory over which it has the supreme and final authority. Amazon doesn’t. The motives, the commodities and services, and the scope of control are entirely different.

Free market capitalism and libertarianism seem very popular patsies, but I don't think that's justified. — Tzeentch

Don’t think what’s justified?

The government has jurisdiction in a given territory over which it has the supreme and final authority. — NOS4A2

Ah! so now we're talking about control over jurisdiction.

Well, if you want control over some jurisdiction, then get off your lazy arse and compete for it! Start a political party, start a separatist campaign, maybe orchestrate a revolution, or an invasion... If you can't stand the heat of the competition though...that's not their fault is it?

Or do we have different message now to the independent booksellers trying to compete with Amazon?

Government spending in the US has been on a steady rise since the early 20th century — Tzeentch

@Xtrix was talking about the scale of government (interventions, taxation, regulation). Why are you talking about spending?

A government of one person could have a single law which completely empties the treasury and gives it all to Jeff Bezos. How is that not a 'small government'? Spending is not a measure of government size, the quantity of governing is.

Don’t think what’s justified?
6h — Xtrix

For libertarian or classic liberal ideas to be considered responsible for our current predicament, when the US government hasn't embodied those ideas for a very long time and has essentially moved in the opposite direction uninterrupted.

The issue is one of balance of power, wealth grants power to the wealthy, either directly though control of companies etc. or indirectly through use of money for influence, lobbying, etc.

A good state for humanity is that everyone leads a flourishing life and we therefore have less crime, better education and health and generally a better society which needs less intervention from governments.

The vast majority of people will seek to protect their wealth, this includes the very wealthy, so very few people will give up any more than they absolutely have to even though there is an enlightened self interest to do so. If you earn 100k per year, in 10 years you will have earned 1 million of whatever currency you are being paid. It would take you 10,000 years to earn 1 billion, yes that's ten thousand years! No one needs to have 1 billion, even 100 million looks excessive.

It is in everyone's interest to have a stable society and not have wild economic fluctuations, bubbles, wars, market crashes, revolutions. Therefore there needs to be regulation and taxation to create a society that is seen as fair and allows everyone to flourish and to do that by curbing the worst excesses of the most acquisitive. The difficulty is that the wealthy have the power but the causal chain between the societal problems of the poor and the effects those have on the wealthy is very long and complex so convincing the wealthy-powerful to accept constraints is very unlikely.

A good state for humanity is that everyone leads a flourishing life and we therefore have less crime, better education and health and generally a better society which needs less intervention from governments. — TheVeryIdea

It is very questionable whether large governments produce these things, and whether large governments will ever cede their power when they become superfluous.

The vast majority of people will seek to protect their wealth, this includes the very wealthy, so very few people will give up any more than they absolutely have to even though there is an enlightened self interest to do so. If you earn 100k per year, in 10 years you will have earned 1 million of whatever currency you are being paid. It would take you 10,000 years to earn 1 billion, yes that's ten thousand years! No one needs to have 1 billion, even 100 million looks excessive. — TheVeryIdea

Judging other people's wealth to be excessive is a very typical thing. Suppose an ascetic came along and started to judge your wealth. They judge that you could do without all of that fancy food, nice-looking clothes, your car, your house, warm showers, etc. After all, they don't need those things so why should you?

Greed is something that only other people ever seem to be guilty of, and excessive wealth only applies to people who are wealthier than ourselves. The irony is that much of that 'excessive wealth' is created by providing goods and services that benefit society, and that those 'excessively rich' people also pay more taxes and thus contribute more to other people's well-being already.

It is in everyone's interest to have a stable society and not have wild economic fluctuations, bubbles, wars, market crashes, revolutions. Therefore there needs to be regulation and taxation to create a society that is seen as fair and allows everyone to flourish and to do that by curbing the worst excesses of the most acquisitive. — TheVeryIdea

It is not evident that big government prevents such things. In fact, government intervention often leads to unexpected consequences down the line which arguably are worse than what it sought to mend.

In my view, governments seem to often trade small, short-term problems for large, long-term ones - partly due to ignorance and partly due to election politics.

Let the economy run its course and there will be ups and downs, crises, of course. However, what government intervention often does is it tries to prevent these natural fluctuations, resulting in ultimately a bigger crisis.

One example would be how the US government has gotten into the habit of extending guarantees to large banks who they deemed 'too big to fail', which predictably caused those large banks to exhibit more and more problematic behavior now that their risk is essentially carried by the government.

Perhaps that first bank should have just been allowed to fail. That would be a disaster for some people, of course. But that would be the end of it. From that point onward it would be clear to all that risky business practices bring along real risks, and that no one is going to bail them out. Further, it would've perhaps lead to a greater deal of consciousness among the people that they need to be critical of their banks' business practices, because they are also the bearers of that risk.

It is very questionable whether large governments produce these things, and whether large governments will ever cede their power when they become superfluous. — Tzeentch

I'm sure they don't at the moment and voters are rarely presented with a choice at elections for a government that would.

Judging other people's wealth to be excessive is a very typical thing. Suppose an ascetic came along and started to judge your wealth. They judge that you could do without all of that fancy food, nice-looking clothes, your car, your house, warm showers, etc. After all, they don't need those things so why should you? — Tzeentch

We can base those judgements on the median or mode of wealth. There is a joke in the UK (the "tories" are the right-wing pro-capital, supposedly anti regulation party, the daily mail is a right wing news paper)

A tory party donor, a daily mail reader and an immigrant go to a meeting and there is a plate of biscuits
The tory donor takes all the biscuits except one then whispers to the daily mail readier "keep an eye on that immigrant they are trying to steal you biscuit"


I agree that governments don't currently provide these things, at least in the UK and US, places like Denmark might be better but I do think it should be an aim of government. I also agree that banks should allowed to fail and people who lose out should be compensated directly by the government from money taken from the profits of other banks, even the threat of that happening would change the focus of banking shareholders.

For libertarian or classic liberal ideas to be considered responsible for our current predicament, when the US government hasn't embodied those ideas for a very long time and has essentially moved in the opposite direction uninterrupted. — Tzeentch

Those ideas are mostly nonsense anyway, and would be a disaster if implemented — as all capitalists know. They need a strong state to exist.

Regardless, I don’t see much reservation from “libertarians” when it comes to attributing Venezuela’s economic problems to “socialism.” Everyone can claim it’s not the true policy being implemented — and there’s plenty of truth in it. But let’s be consistent.

Those ideas are mostly nonsense anyway, and would be a disaster if implemented — as all capitalists know. — Xtrix

They seemed to have worked well for the United States and its capitalists in the era between its conception and the second world war in which government expenditure was about 3-5% of GDP.

They seemed to have worked well for the United States and its capitalists in the era between its conception and the second world war in which government expenditure was about 3-5% of GDP. — Tzeentch

You mean the era of Railway Labor Act, Davis-Bacon (prevailing wage) Act, the National Labor Relations Act, Fair Labor Standards Act, and the Fair Employment Practice Commission...?

The era of major breakthroughs in government legislation controlling how corporations can act.

The era of the gift tax, sales taxes...

The era when Roosevelt signed the Social Security Act.

The era with the fastest rise in marginal tax rates in US history to it's peak in 1944.

That era...?

They seemed to have worked well for the United States and its capitalists in the era between its conception and the second world war in which government expenditure was about 3-5% of GDP. — Tzeentch

It did? Check out the 1780s and see how well it worked. The era of true “small government.” Didn’t work so well.

In any case, you’re talking about a state-capitalist system of the 1800s? (Which is all we’ve ever had: state capitalism.) Yes, crash after crash and panic after panic. There’s a reason for the federal reserve system, anti-trust legislation, and eventually Bretton Woods. I don’t consider the days of child labor, robber barons, and enormous monopolies to be a golden age. “Gilded Age,” sure.

On the other hand, take a look at the New Deal/Bretton Woods era, when the state-capitalist system leaned much more into regulations (“regimented capitalism”). That era — from 40s to early 70s — is what most people mean by America’s golden age. Real wages, GDP growth, etc. And no major crash. Corporations — especially the financial sector — all heavily regulated. No stock buybacks, no Friedman Doctrine. The era of corporate managerialism. What was the result there? Better for the employees and for the companies themselves. Much more egalitarian society — at least for white people.

It does no good believing in fantasies of free markets or small government. All it translates to is small government for everyone else except those in power and with wealth. The problem with the New Deal era is that it didn’t go far enough— it was still capitalism.

In fairness, I knew he was referring to the era prior to FDR. That’s often how it’s taught, with some merit. The federal government’s role did indeed expand in the 30s. But so what? Given that we were in a depression, it was needed. Look at the results, more importantly.

The opposing argument is that it was the Fed that caused the depression— and that it was the war, not the new deal, that accounts for the greatness of the post war era. :snicker:

There’s really no convincing “Government is the problem” junkies.

In fairness, I knew he was referring to the era prior to FDR. That’s often how it’s taught, with some merit. — Xtrix

Probably (though I wouldn't be confident, given the quality of arguments), but yeah, I was just Rand-baiting. It's not for the convincing, it's to see what possible twists and turns people take to defend a belief they hold dear. A difficult thing to observe in one's self, only really observable in others, usually the more dogmatic the better.

The interesting point to craw out here, I think, is the way this is all about money and effort. Just basic greed and laziness - really classic stuff.

@Tzeentch's talk of 'Big Government' is a euphemism for 'government which takes money from me or makes be put effort in'

That's the takeaway from the use of...

government expenditure was about 3-5% of GDP. — Tzeentch

...as an indicator of Small Government.

That's why certain labour laws (to a point), massive bailouts, and government investment are never considered signs of 'Big Government'. Only social welfare, taxation and progressive legislation are. Because these latter take money and impose duties.

We always, in these discussions, end up with the neo-liberals saying that they don't want No Government, only Small Government. When we dig into what that means, it inevitably means that government should maintain all the laws and regulation which help the neo-liberal get rich without constraint, but ditch all the laws which help others.

Which worked out perfectly for capitalists (and just them), which was his point I think.

We're both Dutch. You're welcome to share everything that you think is going wrong and we can talk about how those specific issues would be best solved over a beer.

I have plenty of problems with the Dutch government but that's not really the point between us at this moment. Where "evils" were perpetrated, you have to show this is the result of government functioning or the result of politics. It's almost always the latter, although I'd argue the US governmental institutions and their relations are set up in such a way that they invite abuse with too little in the way of counterveiling forces. So there are definitely systems that are better than others. I think the Dutch system is one of the best - one of my favourites is the easy access for new parties that allow for the introduction of new issues in political discourse that are relevant to society but ignored by mainstream parties. The better the system, the less corruption or "special interest" have a chance to influence decision making. But at the end of the day, to me it's mostly about political culture.

I might be mistaken and it's just because I'm older and notice it more, but I feel that Dutch political parties have become more corrupt than say 20 years ago, with political leaders not taking responsibility for governmental failures, a focus on political symbolism and point-scoring in media. Just look at the toeslagenaffaire, how Pieter Omtzigt was treated and the talk about a new "culture of transparancy" but nobody following it through. Just windowdressing.

And this has influence on how ministries are run and act. They are increasingly in the business of keeping elected officials out of trouble. So they avoid taking difficult decisions because the minister is not going to sign off on it any way.

It did? Check out the 1780s and see how well it worked. The era of true “small government.” Didn’t work so well. — Xtrix

Let's keep the conversation honest. The birth of the United States was a period full of conflict and wars against nations that were at that time much more powerful. To just chalk that all up to "small government" is very convenient for you, and in my opinion bereft of any reason.

In any case, you’re talking about a state-capitalist system of the 1800s? (Which is all we’ve ever had: state capitalism.) Yes, crash after crash and panic after panic. — Xtrix

Ups and downs is the nature of economics. It's exactly the desire to forcefully stop that fluctuation that makes government interventions so problematic.

It creates unnatural incentives and as a result essentially forces the government to stay involved. It only worsens the problem in the long run as people are lured into businesses that would not be able to stay afloat naturally.

That goes on until the power of government is no longer enough to support this unnatural situation. The house of cards always comes tumbling down at some point, the question is how long we allow ourselves to keep building on crumbling foundations - government interventions can drag this on for a very long time, as we've seen with the banking crises, the finale of which we're still due.

There’s a reason for the federal reserve system, anti-trust legislation, and eventually Bretton Woods. — Xtrix

I'm sure there are, and not all of them without merit, though the federal reserve has certainly done more harm than good.

On the other hand, take a look at the New Deal/Bretton Woods era, when the state-capitalist system leaned much more into regulations (“regimented capitalism”). That era — from 40s to early 70s — is what most people mean by America’s golden age. Real wages, GDP growth, etc. And no major crash. Corporations — especially the financial sector — all heavily regulated. No stock buybacks, no Friedman Doctrine. The era of corporate managerialism. What was the result there? Better for the employees and for the companies themselves. Much more egalitarian society — at least for white people. — Xtrix

Every system and policy has its benefits and detractors. To me the question would be how much of that prosperity was made possible by the fact virtually every other country in the world lay in ruins and the United States had near-unlimited global reign as a result of World War 2. You're pointing at a 30-year period - that is not a very long time. What happens after that period, when the rest of the world is once again able to compete with the US economy?

It no good believing in fantasies of free markets or small government. All it translates to is small government for everyone else except those in power and with wealth. — Xtrix

You may believe this, but the world disagreed, and people came from all over the world to live under this 'terrible' system. You are dismissing classic liberal ideas and libertarianism as "nonsense" and fantasy - it's crazy. The proof is in the pudding.

Maybe you've mistaken me as arguing for some kind of libertarian utopia on practical grounds - I'm certainly not doing that. Imperfect man will always need some government, but too often we forget that its the same imperfect man that takes the reigns in government.

I'll happily take the good with the bad. No system is perfect. It seems you're keen on pointing at all the things that go well as a sign of success of your ideas, but ignore the flipside of the coin, so it's a bit unfair you're accusing me of harboring fantasies.

Where "evils" were perpetrated, you have to show this is the result of government functioning or the result of politics. — Benkei

Strong governments produce the vessel by which politics can do its damage. I agree, if we were somehow able to seperate governance from imperfect man perhaps we'd be in agreement.

That power finds its way into the hands of powerful and often corrupt individuals anyway, however the question is whether they get to use and abuse their power on the market through economic force, or through government through coercion, or worse yet, both.

That's why I believe governments should be small, with very limited mandates: because malignant power exercised through economics, while it can also be very unpleasant, is of a different order of magnitude than malignant power excercised through government.

I think the Dutch system is one of the best - one of my favourites is the easy access for new parties that allow for the introduction of new issues in political discourse that are relevant to society but ignored by mainstream parties. The better the system, the less corruption or "special interest" have a chance to influence decision making. But at the end of the day, to me it's mostly about political culture. — Benkei

Had you asked me five or six years ago, I would have agreed. I don't know what exactly changed, but if I had to guess (and a guess is all it is) is that multinational business has grown so powerful that it can use all these mandates governments have given themselves to further assert their power - crony capitalism at its worst.

However, where we may differ in views is that I do not believe governments are able to resist against this phenomenon, and giving governments further mandates to fight private business will only result in larger, more unaffordable behemoth government, and more mandates that will be in the end abused against the citizen.

Being exploited by private business is of course equally unpleasant, but at least private business will always have to contend with law and a government's monopoly on violence - its evils and power over citizens is at least limited to a degree. Government has no such boundaries.

I feel that Dutch political parties have become more corrupt than say 20 years ago, with political leaders not taking responsibility for governmental failures, a focus on political symbolism and point-scoring in media. Just look at the toeslagenaffaire, how Pieter Omtzigt was treated and the talk about a new "culture of transparancy" but nobody following it through. Just windowdressing. — Benkei

I agree. It's one of many instances that contributed to my disillusionment.

I've come to regard this process by which a system corrupts over time as an inevitability, which is exactly the reason why I feel the power of such systems should be kept small by its very structure.

Perhaps this trend may reverse itself naturally by the integrity of our system, if indeed it still possesses any. Maybe. But that remains to be seen and I am skeptical.

And this has influence on how ministries are run and act. They are increasingly in the business of keeping elected officials out of trouble. So they avoid taking difficult decisions because the minister is not going to sign off on it any way. — Benkei

It seems to me most political parties in the Netherlands are occupied with staying friendly with one another, which essentially ensures the role of opposition is no longer carried out the way it should, with some individuals being the exception.

I suppose this is one advantage the United States has with their two party system: they hate each other's guts so when one party does something questionable or unlawful, the other party will expose it ruthlessly, thereby at least the function of opposition is still carried out. In the Netherlands it is swept under the rug. Some people who take their role as statesmen and -women seriously will still call attention to it, but their power simply does not compare to that of the political order.

Let's keep the conversation honest. The birth of the United States was a period full of conflict and wars against nations that were at that time much more powerful. To just chalk that all up to "small government" is very convenient for you, and in my opinion bereft of any reason. — Tzeentch

I mentioned the 1780s. This was the time of the articles of confederation. Almost no central government— an extremely weak one. It couldn’t impose taxes, it couldn’t raise an army, it needed unanimous or near-unanimous approval of the states to do anything. Yes, I’d say that’s “small government.” And I don’t see anything dishonest about it.

As for the 1800s, I went over that as well.

Ups and downs is the nature of economics. It's exactly the desire to forcefully stop that fluctuation that makes government interventions so problematic. — Tzeentch

You call it “natural,” but that’s really no excuse. As I mentioned, there were no major crashes during the Bretton Woods era — when the financial sector was actually regulated.

So perhaps “natural” when left to their own devices.

Imperfect man will always need some government, but too often we forget that its the same imperfect man that takes the reigns in government. — Tzeentch

Yes, and reducing human purpose to competition in markets is insane.

You call it “natural,” but that’s really no excuse. As I mentioned, there were no major crashes during the Bretton Woods era — when the financial sector was actually regulated. — Xtrix

Can you explain to me the economic mechanism that ensured, as you say, no major crashes took place during this period, and why we are not utilizing this mechanism today?

Yes, and reducing human purpose to competition in markets is insane. — Xtrix

I truly hope you don't view classical liberalism as espousing such a view. Classical liberalism elevated the common man from a slave to autocrats, viewed as little more than a barn animal, to a sovereign being, with inherent rights and moral value.

If you believe I'm arguing from a standpoint as you just described, you must think I am some sort of monster and I don't believe there is any point in continuing this discussion.

However, where we may differ in views is that I do not believe governments are able to resist against this phenomenon, and giving governments further mandates to fight private business will only result in larger, more unaffordable behemoth government, and more mandates that will be in the end abused against the citizen. — Tzeentch

Yes, we definitely diverge there. We know from history that smaller government leads to worse abuse by capitalists (exploitation). Especially in light of modern corporate power, the state is the only entity capable of being a counterveiling force to capitalist power. Trust in the Dutch governments was highest with "vadertje Drees", a social Democrat. The last politician we had that was respected across party lines when the ontzuiling wasn't even fully accomplished. Because back then his breed of politicians at least tried to do what was best for most citizens, instead of catering to special interests.

Since then we've seen the slow erosion of the welfare state due to liberal theory's narrow idea of freedom (as only negative freedom). Without financial solidarity, there's no social solidarity. And when a government isn't seen to combat social injustice, you get distrust of the government. If that distrust isn't addressed but instead exacerbated due to an immoral shift in political culture, you get the what we have now. Combined with a rising power of corporations due to internationalisation, concentration and financial deregulation, they are also more prone to be influenced by special interests.

In this day and age while I'll always be more of a socialist, I think it's no longer about party ideology but personal character. We need representatives that can ignore party politics, set aside their ego and sincerely think about "what is best" instead of technocratic adjustments and I don't really care if he's a liberal or a socialist deep down. Both ideologies brought a lot of good and probably reflect in a sense a basic human contradiction: that of belonging (socialism) and being yourself (liberalism).

I consider capitalism as it's ordered at this point in time to be an affront to both. Wage slavery, attacks on labour unions in the US, liberalisation of international markets meaning that people are slowly all become flex workers with related deterioration in labour protections and room and freedom for personal development, etc.