Collective ownership vs private ownership

This is a question to all the Social Workers and the layman alike – as a socialist and a Social Worker do I necessarily oppose capitalism in the current economic and social conditions? A perceived irreversible opposition is existing between these two dominant philosophical concepts in the national and international political arena over 120 years. This paper aims to investigate this question and deconstruct the supposed opposition. This paper will put effort to find an answer to the question that does socialists inevitably oppose capitalism or are there any grey areas where their approaches overlap.  

            Instead of analyzing every model of approaches, this paper will instead focus primarily on socialist opposition to laissez-faire, or free-market capitalism. This kind of capitalism has rarely been present in undiluted form, but dominated largely in the 19^th century at United States and Great Britain (Rand 1982, p 66), and in the British colony of Hong Kong before the return to Chinese rule - and can be seen to have been advocated by Adam Smith, Friedrich Hayek, Ayn Rand and Murray Rothbard, and among others. The main tenets of laissez-faire capitalism are the protection of private property, and the limitation of government intervention to only situations where some conception of individual rights are deemed to be infringed (Rand 1966, p19). Ideologically, capitalism was initially justified in a more utilitarian way, and was portrayed as a pragmatist economic delivery vehicle; only later was capitalism defended on individualist moral grounds (Rand 1966, p19-40).

Measuring differences in socialist thought propose the use of the state as a delivery vehicle (Bradlaugh 1887, p3-9). “The distance between the poles of the purely free market, on the one hand, and total collectivism on the other is a continuum involving different 'mixes' of the freedom principle and the coercive, hegemonic principle. Any increase of government ownership or control, therefore, is 'socialistic', or 'collectivistic', because it is a coercive intervention bringing the economy one step closer to complete socialism” (Rothbard 2004, p 1274).  According to Mueller (1982, P60), profit-oriented, private ownership equals the paradigm of laissez-faire capitalism; profit-oriented collective ownership creates the market-socialist, 'cooperative' model; want-oriented private ownership creates 'state capitalism' finally, want-oriented collective ownership leads, at least in theory, to the totally monopolised, centrally-planned communist model. Socialism has been shown in broad terms to be a collectivist approach to the social organization which stresses the domination of the group over the individual.

         From an ethical standpoint “capitalism focuses on production as a means to make profits, whereas socialism regards the satisfaction of needs as the end product must serve” (Mueller 1982, p156). “Society is fully entitled to agree or alter any particular right of property which on sufficient consideration it judges to stand in the way of the public good” (Sarvasy 1985, p315).

Many on the socialist side of the argument can be seen to oppose capitalism primarily because of the perceived evils of 'abuses by competing firms' (Krisztics 1935). Corporatism might be better suited as a description of the cause of such abuse. Unless coercive force is being used, what constitutes 'abuse' is a subjective matter, state-capitalism or market socialism, all involve the forceful intervention of government power into the economy, in opposition with capitalist principles.

Empirically, the very existence of the most widespread current political ideologies – that of the 'mixed market', the 'progressive society' and the 'welfare state' - is unquestionable evidence that socialism and capitalism can mix in some way. In fact, many commentators have indicated that the line between state socialism and state capitalism (corporatism) is very blurred (Mueller 1982, p158).

However, the argument can also be made that even Mueller's crossover models are mythical contradictions. There does appear to be a large amount of contradiction (and opposition) inherent in the models, which Mueller himself acknowledges. “The contradiction remains that in state-capitalism production is social, i.e., designed for society as a whole, while the profits flow to private owners without any moral justification such as risk, innovation, etc. In the long run, therefore, this type of monopoly tends to degenerate into a combination of greedy capitalism and lifeless bureaucracy (Mueller 1982). Ultimately, Mueller posits, of two things only one is possible: either a market mechanism and competition, or regulation (planning) and monopoly.

However, at this historical juncture, it would perhaps be immature to claim purposeful certainty as to which system – capitalist, socialist or a mixed-market system - may have the greatest longevity, since all three paradigms have appeared at different times and then collapsed.

Anish Alex 

Reference

Bradlaugh, C. (1887).  Socialism: its fallacies and dangers. Bristol 1887.

Chomsky N. (1996). Old Wine in New Bottles: A Bitter Taste. Electronic Journal of Radical Organization Theory, June.  Retrieved from: http://www.chomsky.info/articles/199606--.htm

Hyndman and Mayers (1884). Will socialism benefit the English people? Bristol Selected Pamphlets: University of Bristol Library

Krisztics, A. (1935). Essential Principles of Socialism, Fascism, and Democracy.  Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, Vol. 180,

Krisztics, A. (1935). Socialism, Fascism, and Democracy. Sage Publications, Inc. in association with the American Academy of Political and Social Science, Vol. 188, pp. 129-137.

Leftwich, A. (1992). Is There a Socialist Path to Socialism.  Third World Quarterly, Vol. 13 - 1

Leftwich, A. (1992).  Rethinking Socialism. Taylor & Francis, Ltd. Vol. 14 p27-42

Mueller, G. (1982). Socialism and Capitalism in the Work of Max Weber.  The British Journal of Sociology, Vol. 33, No. 2 (Jun., 1982), pp. 151-171

Rand, A. (1966). Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal. London: Penguin

Rand, A.  (1982). Philosophy: Who needs it? London: Signet

Rothbard, M, (2004. Man, Economy, and State with Power and Market. Alabama: Ludwig Von Mises Institute

Sarvasy, W. (1985). A Reconsideration of the Development and Structure of John Stuart Mill's Socialism.  The Western Political Quarterly, Vol. 38, No. 2 (Jun., 1985), pp. 312-333 

Western Social Work Practice in non-Western Countries (Anish Alex MSW, RSW)

Western Social Work Practice in non-Western Countries

The history of modern social work practice begins in the Western world in the 19^th century. Due to the complexities associated with the social change occurred during the industrialization and urbanization period affected traditional patterns of family and community support systems in the western world. As a result, a modern organized form of support and care system has been developed to supplement and complement family and community care system called professional social work. The practice of institutionalized care system played key role in the new profession, developed from an Anglo-American standpoint of liberal, Judeo-Christian, capitalist values and philosophies. Western social work practice and philosophies face various challenges in a different ethno-cultural setting (Tsui & Yan, 2010) of non-western countries.

     The historical frameworks of settlement movements and the social care demands of urbanization in the west historically made significant structural and pragmatic changes in the social work profession and created more responsive to the local needs of Western countries (Gray & Fook, 2004). Precisely, this helping profession was originally developed to meet the needs of the ethno-cultural communities of the western industrialized society. The western version of this modern care profession traveled from west to fit in the local needs of other regions of the globe as part of charitable efforts of missionaries, British colonialism, globalization and open trade. This article attempts to examine the implications of western social work practices in non-Western countries with special focus on historical, cultural and social factors. I argue that western social work practice is not only fit for the culture it faces serious challenges to meet the unique requirements of isolated, remote, and culturally diverse population in other regions. Despite of the debate about the core mission of the social work practice, this profession could achieve a good reputation among western care world by stabilizing or controlling problems of the capitalist societies.

     Nagpaul, (1972) and  Midgley, (1981) viewed that many developing countries like Latin American countries, several Asian countries and much of African countries were not taken ‘social work’ in to a serious account as western world has viewing this profession. There has been a substantial discourse about the insignificance of educating and practicing western model of social work to resolve the social problems of developing countries (as cited in Payne, 1998).

     The indigenous thinking of social development started to question the dominance of Western social work education and its practices in non-Western countries. The profession is still trying to connect the western model of social development in to the socio-cultural, economical, historical and political landscape of other regions like Africa and Asia. Due to the huge gap between social development and economic development of many of these countries, western social work practice faces in-numerous challenges to allocate social and economic resources for the vulnerable population (Tsui & Yan, 2010). Also, the in-applicability and inappropriateness of western social work model in isolated, remote settings of developing countries raises the question of its relevance in diverse and complex societies. Apparently,  critical psycho-social assessments and targeted social work interventions in the local complex remote setting with a foreign ideology created new challenges to the profession (Gray & Fook, 2004). Liberal, Judeo-Christian and capitalist foundations of western social work education and practice not only struggles to meet the requirements of local people but also possibly not capable to build trust among people. Hence political and professional existence of professionals in the social work sector became a question in non-western countries (Tsui & Yan, 2010).

     A qualitative study conducted by Brydon (2011) found that implementation of western social work model and practice in non-western countries are arguably challenging. Brydon also cited that western social work is not a universal model of practice rather it is an indigenous model. There is little or no integration of wide range of worldviews and different discourses applicable to all regions. Western social work education primarily focusing on individual rights and client’s determination, but in most of the cases the professionals were dealing with communities where family and collective responsibility is predominantly valued than individuality (Nguyen 2005, as cited in Brydon, 2011).  

     A rethinking of “adapting, adjusting and modifying imported knowledge, theories, values, and philosophy” mainly from the Western work to fit in the local social context is unavoidable. However, an integration of imported knowledge base and cultural, social, economical, and political philosophies of the non-western communities can offer new solutions for this difficult situation (Tsui & Yan, 2010, p. 308). 
Revitalization of social work practice in these countries required a multi-dimensional approach includes local knowledge development, promotion of traditional healing models, and reinstating socio-cultural practices. 
In addition many social work professionals from most of these non-western regions were trained in western world. And the social work education in many non-Western countries are following either new or a second hand translation of Anglo-American textbooks and reference materials. It profoundly reproduce and reinforce the believes and values of a neoliberal-euro-centric-capitalist society. 

     Social work education and classrooms should create a space to incorporate the challenges of local social work practices in the context of regional social development. Moreover, a remedial approach from all levels may open some new platforms to help those regions; social work educators can raise the awareness about the roots of current social work paradigm in their country with a critical point of view. And help the new generation social workers towards the transformation of more localized social work practice. It is important to engage social work education with local practices, and teaching materials produces locally. However a successful social work intervention in non-western countries may requires an integration of western knowledge and local wisdom especially those who are practicing western social work. 

Anish Alex MSW

References

Brydon, K. (2011). Offering social work education in an offshore context: A case study of an Australian programme delivered in Singapore. International Social Work, 54(5), 681-699. Doi: 10.1177/0020872810382527

Gray, M & J. Fook. (2004). The quest for a universal social work: some issues and implications. Social Work Education. 23(5), 625-644. Doi: 10.1080/0261547042000252325

Ming-sum, T., & Miu Chung, Y. (2010, May). Developing social work in developing countries: Experiences in the Asia Pacific region. International Social Work. pp. 307-310. doi:10.1177/0020872809359746.

Pawar, M. (2010). Looking Outwards: Teaching International Social Work in Asia. Social Work Education, 29(8), 896-909. doi:10.1080/02615479.2010.517018

Payne, M. (1998). Why social work? Comparative perspectives on social issue and response formation. International Social Work, 41(4), 443-453.