Next wave of societal evolution?

Post Reply New Topic

I did not deny that, however, that does not prove or disprove Izaak's point, which may be hard to critique because he did not fully develop it.


Well, I don't think that bias is purely the reason why things are what they are in this case. Izaak is not conventional and defies conventional wisdom in his own ways, ways that would make him more opposed to the soviets rather than less. Nobody has claimed that the Communists were as bad or worse than the Nazis, the claim is simply that the Communists are bad, which you still have not addressed as you have merely argued that there are mitigating factors and that this badness is over-estimated by the west. Neither of which really debunk the other point.

Ok, everyone has ideology and frankly escaping ideology is impossible. I still really don't get your point in some ways, as nobody has stated anything that seems completely intellectually dishonest so far, only statements that might seem ideological to some.

Really? If you mean nobody in this particular thread, you may be right. If you mean nobody ever anywhere, you're wrong. And I'm not just talking about the right-wing lunatic fringe. There is also, unfortunately imo, a well-respected academic movement representing the thesis that Stalin was at least as bad as Hitler, going back at least as far as Hannah Arendt and still thriving today.

You're right that I haven't addressed some of the points made in this thread. But some of these points are hard to address objectively, for many reasons, one of which is that so much of what we -- in the US, at least. I don't know who here is an Ozzie or a Brit or Irish of from New Zealand or etc -- have heard about the Soviet Union is very biased, and it's difficult to sort out facts from half-truths and errors and lies.

I meant the thread, not the history of mankind or anything like that.

Well, given that the argument is theoretical to a great extent(not just the USSR but the entire ideology of socialism), half-truths and lies only need to be sorted out in as much as they are used to support theories. The theory is that ultimately, there is something about socialistic theory when put into practice that causes it to either bring about, or support dangerous totalitarianism, which is a claim that ultimately would demand clarification of terms to fully address, such as the terms used and the ideological lines to be drawn.

Alllll-rightythen!



Alright, I'll make an attempt at some clarification.

I think that if we consider the Socialist and Social Democratic and Labour parties of Europe, as opposed to the Communists, to actually be socialistic, and that if we consider things such as care for the poor and elderly to be socialistic when they are provided by the state, even if they are instituted by conservatives to beat socialists to the punch, as was the case in Germany under Bismarck, then we have already torn some big holes in the theory that socialism leads to or encourages totalitarianism.

Maybe it needs to be repeated that the actual stated goals of socialism, and communism, include making sure that people don't starve, or die or go blind or have all their teeth fall out because they can't afford healthcare, or have to work all day making other people rich without getting a fair share of the wealth. And that despite the Nazis' and other extremist parties' having had the word "socialist" in their names, that which is generally known as socialism, and communism, does not include racism, or eugenics.

And that the Nazis did not officially condemn Christianty or promote atheism. I know, religious people love to speculate wildly about the supposedly widespread atheism among the Nazis. But, even assuming that they're right and that the Nazis were a bunch of athesits, does someone's atheism really matter much to anyone else if they keep it well-hidden?

The only thing is that I would not call socialistic measures to be the same as socialism, as one is creating a whole new cloth while the other is simply siphoning off resources from a pre-existing one. The argument is not that the individuals who accept the ideology are going to go off killing orphans but rather that the ideology, once fully implemented, leads to societal destruction. Frankly, my concern in this case isn't the mixed economy.


I know what the stated goals of socialism and communism are, but once again, those are not the issues being questioned. To get more to issue, I'll quote economist Friedrich Hayek: "Is there a greater tragedy imaginable than that, in our endeavour consciously to shape our future in accordance with high ideals, we should in fact unwittingly produce the very opposite of what we have been striving.", the argument is not that believers in socialism are inherently evil, but rather that its implementation will ultimately and inevitably end in a Soviet style collapse.

Well, that is a condemnation of Betzalel's idea, and on some level, her real bias is that Christianity is good and non-Christian things are evil. On some level it falls down to tautology as if we define the non-Christian actions as evil, then any regime that acts evil is not Christian.

This has been a very interesting discussion so far, but I need to take a break. I guess all I have to say for now is "Oh no, not Friedrich Hayek!"

Thanks for the stimulating feedback, catch ya later.

I don't know how serious you are being. Friedrich Hayek is very well known by libertarians, so that could either be taken as mocking, or as an aggravation at running into a libertarian. In all fairness, I did not quote him in order to make it an end to all discussion resting upon his authority, but rather to push the point by bringing an authority to stand by.

Last edited by Awesomelyglorious on 25 Mar 2008, 11:02 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Has anyone read a book called City by Clifford D. Simak, it follows the collapse of our civilization, which allows solitary mutant geniuses, possibly Homo Superior to evolve, some who decide to run experiments with civilization, they sort of reminded me of people with aspergers, preferring to be isolated from people, and having unique views of the world

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_%28Cl ... k_novel%29

I'm still concerned with some basic matters of definition. I hope this isn't boring to you, Awesomelyglorious. It's certainly not boring to me. The more precision and clarity we can bring to a discussion, the better, as far as I'm concerned.

My remark was meant to be humourous, but it also expressed my sincere diappointment at Hayek's name being mentioned. I'm not as impressed with Hayek as others are, I'm not very impressed by libertarianism generally.

There are a couple of specific points upon which we disagree. You say: "I would not call socialistic measures to be the same as socialism." I would.

You say: "the argument is not that believers in socialism are inherently evil, but rather that its implementation will ultimately and inevitably end in a Soviet style collapse." OK, you're paraphrasing Hayek here, it's not clear to me whether you share Hayek's point of view. In any case, as I've stated in the thread "You can't open a philosophy factory," I feel that words which convey absoluteness are overused, because absolute certainty can be achieved so seldom. So here I have a problem with the word "inevitably."

Of course, I have a very similar problem with orthodox Marxists, and THEIR overuse of the word and concept of inevitability. If anything has been proven by mankind's many predictions of the future, it's that they are almost always significantly mistaken. It's hard enough for a meteorological expert to predict the weather for a specific area a couple of days in advance; predicting the fate of entire nations years and decades in advance is a much, much more complex task. If one is going to indulge in such predictions at all, it seems to me that it is much better to speak of possibilities, to be very careful before asserting that this or that is probable, and to have enough humility not to speak of certianties and inevitabilities at all.

I am not that upset about it. Honestly, it is a direction I pushed towards in the first place anyway. If I get tired of it I'll probably let you know.


Ah, so it was column A and column B. Frankly, I am not too taken aback by that, Hayek is a rather extreme thinker on the edges of economic thought who can oft be considered an ideologue, or iconoclast.


Right, well, to me the problem is that socialistic measures do not really compromise the capitalistic economy, so therefore, I would not rightly call them the same as socialism. To get more into the heart of the matter, socialistic measures do not remove the price mechanism throughout the economy, however, full-blown socialism usually does remove the price mechanism throughout the economy. Now, we can argue about market socialism's workability, but it was my intention to exclude it for more orthodox socialist systems.


I would say that the argument is inspired by Hayek, but I would not say that I am merely parroting Hayek, as the man also influenced many modern economic thinkers who re-interpreted his ideas into their own frameworks. I will admit that absolute terms are overused, however, my intent was to establish a strong position of difficulty if not insurmountable difficulty.

Right, well, I do not refer to any historical dialectic or anything of that nature, and consider them a fair sight worse than what I did. However, in my defense, the argument is not one of multivariate organizations of human life, but rather in theoretical problems within socialist systems that I do not see as having been adequately addressed. To add to this issue, I am also assuming the goals of continued economic growth(extensive or intensive), and improving material welfare. So, in essence, I am defining things such that the argument boils down to whether a price system would do better at managing economic affairs better than any non-price system known. Are any of my efforts to define things questionable to you?

No, so far I don't see any objectionable definitions on your part.

This is getting kind of deep, I don't know if I can keep up. Or maybe I'm just a little tired at the moment. I don't know all of the ins and out of price systems as opposed to non-price systems. I completely agree with you that some basic theoretical questions have not adequately addressed by most socialist theory. On the other hand, many social issues are hardly addressed at all by some libertarian laissez-faire economists, from Smith to Friedmann. (Who was it who said that he felt that the invisible hand was giving him the finger?)

Perhaps we're not really so very far apart at all in our worldviews, once matters of definition and semantics are cleared away. Let me tell you some of the major ways in which I depart from orthodox socialist theory as it was put into practice in the Soviet bloc, and continues in China and Cuba and elsewhere.

For one thing, I am completely opposed to any sort of state censorship. Extensive state involvement in journalism, communications and the arts is one thing, censorship is quite another. (A state monopoly of media, such as Putin has in Russia, is a form of cersorship. Putin's critics may not be imprisoned for speaking their minds, but they are prevented from reaching the general public.) Everyone should have the freedom to verbally attack, abuse and mock their government to their heart's content. No government has ever made itself more convincing or powerful or effective by not tolerating criticism. Any government which has real reason to fear being mocked and harrangued at is a very weak government.

Ahhh -- I'm tired. I'll just leave it at that for now. Freedom of expression is a tremendously important thing, and an area where the Communists have seriously hurt their own cause. While I'm on the subject of free speech, let me hasten to add that I do not think that money is speech, as do some libertarians, any more than I believe that music is potatoes or that quartz crystals are anger.