The Ethical Theory of Socialism

Socialism, as I shall define it in ethics, is different from socialism as presently advocated as a governmental system. The socialist government controls, in theory, the means of production. Under ethical socialism, in contrast, the society controls everything and everyone. The socialist government can therefore be said to be an ethical hybrid: capital goods controlled by society (equated with the government), but consumer goods controlled by individuals. 拙者の倫理での社会主義という思想は現在に社会主義という政府と違う。社会主義の政府が理論上で生産手段を制す。社会主義の倫理では社会が全てのものや全ての人を制す。それゆえ社会主義の政府が倫理的な雑種でござる。社会と等しいとされた政府が資本財を制して、人が個々に再取材を制せる。
Let it be clear that when I speak of socialism in ethics, I mean that the society has absolute control, and the individual has none. Also, it is the global society that is the relevant scope; the formation of a hundred and some individual units means they must interact with each other under individualist rules. Therefore the only pure socialism is global socialism. 明白にしよう。拙者の言う倫理での社会主義では、社会には絶対的な統制をする権力があって、個人には何の権利もない。それに、社会が地球の規模にあたる。百数十の政府と言う「社会」では、政府が互いに「個国」として扱うしかできない。国が倫理的な行動者になって、個人の倫理が使わざるを得ない。だから地球規模の社会主義だけが純社会主義になる。
Now, let us consider how socialism can be realized. If it is right that society control everything, then society must exercise its will and do so. So, first, society must have a will. But does it? We as a species lack a lucid hive mind such as one might see in science fiction. 社会主義がどのように現実化する?社会が全てを統制することが正しいなら、意思を行使して統制するべきでござる。先ずは社会に意思があることでござる。その意思があるのか?人類にはサイエンス・フィクションで読めるような明晰な集合精神がない。
The first necessary precondition for socialism is the existence of the will of society. Unlike individual wills, which are axiomatically present, it is not self-evident that society has a will. If a group of people gather with the intention of coming to agreement on some issue or course of action, they might very well reach an impasse. That group, in regard to that topic, does not have a unanimous will. Can we therefore say that there is no “will of the group?” Since even small groups can come to a dead end in deliberations, all the more reason to say that the will of all society does not exist. 社会主義の最初の必要条件は社会の意思の実在でござる。個人の意思と違って、社会の意思が自明の理のように実在しない。個人の集団が集まって、ある論点で話し合いが付かないところに着ける。その集団がその論点では異議のない意志がない。ならば「集団の意思」がないと言える?小さな集団でも一致に着けなくなるのもあるから、全社会には意思がない決断しやすい。
In order to salvage the idea of society’s will, there must be a convention (or set of conventions) that overrides all impasses. In keeping with the rule that all ethical actors are equal, these conventions must regard each actor as equal. 社会の意思の主張を使えるようにするために、熟慮でどんな行き止まりでも社会の意思に到着する慣習を使わなきゃならない。行動者の全員が等しいという原則に従って、その慣習が全員の行動者を差別なく扱わなきゃならない。
I will not here delve into the various conventions that could be utilized. So many rules could exist, from necessary to substantive to frivolous. The ones that work in practice are the ones that will stand the test of time. If socialism is workable, time will reveal them, eventually. The prospective feasibility of this one versus that one would be valuable in getting from where we are to that state (if that is our goal); but for now, this blog only asks, “What would the ethical characteristics of that state be?” 今ここであらゆる慣習を見ない。必要なのから上滑りのまである。社会主義が作用できるならば、よく作用する慣習を分かるのは時間の問題でござる。目的が社会主義に辿り着くことになると、慣習の比較的な作用の査定が大事なんだけど、このブログが今「社会主義の倫理的な特徴は何?」だけを問う。
Once we have the will of society, that will then needs to propagate down to the individuals of society. They can’t know the right thing to do if the will of society does not reach them. There must be a system of conveying orders from society to its individuals. Much like the conventions that generate the will of society from the data provided by disparate individuals, the implementation of this system of dispersing society’s will hither and yon could vary considerably, and, if socialism is workable, eventually the best methods will make themselves evident. 社会の意思を掴めたら、次は社会の人々にその意思を伝えることが必要でござる。社会の意思が届かないと個人が正しいことを分かられない。社会から個人に使命を届く制度が必要でござる。個人の意思から社会の意思を集合する慣習のように、この制度の実行が未知で社会主義が作用できるならば、よく作用する制度を分かるのは時間の問題でござる。
This pure socialism, therefore, requires some set of conventions to compile a great deal of data into a “will of society,” and then a system of conveying to individuals everything that they must do. Then, if they are good, they obey. よって、この純社会主義に必要なものは社会の意思を作る慣習と個人へ使命を届く制度でござる。達成したら、良い個人が従う。
It should be noted that the individual has cause to worry in blind obedience. If the conventions that generate the will of society are inaccurate, their orders will be bad. Likewise, if the system that propagates orders is not fidelitous to the will of society, their orders will be bad. Obedience, under such circumstances, is wrong. だが、個人が盲目的に従うにも危険がある。社会の意思を作る慣習には間違いがあれば使命が悪くなる。それに、使命を届く制度が社会の意思に忠実度を維持しないと、届く使命が悪くなる。悪い使命を従うのも不正である。

About Brian Wilton

I'm a libertarian. I prefer reading articles and books to listening to podcasts, although I hear that podcasts are more popular. Call it Picard's Syndrome.
Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply