Socialism

Post Reply New Topic

Oh, touche. In my defense, I meant that in jest.

But Mordy is making normative statements and trying to turn them into a positive argument.

Taken from an essay I found on the subject that explains the difference very succinctly:


I think this entire discussion on socialism versus capitalism/free market is essentially a normative v. positive argument, which is why we are traveling around in circles. I propose that we begin anew by defining socialism and discussin socialism without bringing normative value judgments into the picture. Maybe then we can make some progress...

I bet you did.
That seems largely true.


Actually, that is a positive statement in your example. The world would indeed be better if the moon were made of cheese. It is undeniable. Certainly, the moon pie business would go down, however, cheese mining on the moon would create thousands of jobs and bring me lots of cheese.

Ha! But would that make the world "better?"

I am not sure that would necessarily be that effective, really I think that these debates are unwinnable simply because most socialists will not change their views and most capitalists won't either. To both sides the facts are irrefutable. I mean, have you participated in an online forum socialism vs capitalism debate?

Yes, me having cheese means the world MUST be better in terms of net gain in utility.

Well, okay, maybe progress is the wrong word. But no one has really sat down and EXPLAINED socialism. All that has really happend is we're talking about possible fixes to capitalism, so what happens is A says something about why socialism is BETTER than capitalism and then B says something about why capitalism is BETTER than socialism, and we've never propely defined either system.

Obviously epistemic problems will always exist, but I think we can kind of neutralize them by coming to a common definition of things.

I think it was assumed that both sides knew what socialism and capitalism were, and for the former that must be assumed considering how the different types of socialism number as many as stars in the sky, and for the latter maybe defining it would improve it, but I am not sure it really would make a difference. I don't think that this is just some knowledge problem but rather and issue of the interaction of ideology and knowledge.

Assumptions are never a good thing to make. But okay, so it is the interaction of ideology and knowledge. I think it might be a good idea at least to define what we mean when we say something like "human nature," since that is, I think, a very key component to free-market v. controlled market governments.

Why are they bad? We make them all of the time. As I type this I assume you exist and are not a figment. I don't even think that the clash is on definitions necessarily, at least not clashes that cannot be worked through. I think the issue is simply one of conflicting ideologies coming to a clash. I have seen this type of debate before, sometimes with one side screwing up the facts in these issues, really I don't think that these are ever winnable, just usually one side gives up. Only the people on the margins tend to change their opinions.

Assumptions of knowledge are generally a bad idea. Assuming someone exists because you are carrying on a conversation with them is different than assuming I understand quantam mechanics and can follow a conversation with ease. Why? Because even if I don't exist, and you are, in fact, crazy, doesn't mean the conversation isn't occuring. But assuming I understand a subject and launching into a lecture on some highly technical discussion with me ends in frustration on both parts (unless you are an Aspie and could care less if someone actually understand what you are saying, just because you are happy they are listening to you in the first place.)

And I don't think is "winnable" in a quantification sense, either. I am not trying to win; I am trying to understand. I don't need to change my opinion to understand what someone is saying. And understanding is a lot easier to accomplish if the foundations of the subject are well defined.

Man what are you, 12 years old? It's transporting and getting the water to where there is none that is costly, sure the water will "return" to the ecosystem, but this does not mean townships and large cities that consume a huge amount of water do not put an emormous and costly strain on getting it to where it is needed, do you understand? I feel like I'm talking to a 12 year old.

Discounting ideas when you don't understand is a dangerous thing. Just like creationists "discount the idea and evidence" of evolution does not make evolution false.





I do believe men are barbarians, do you not believe invading IRAQ was something a barbarian would do? i.e. an unevolved backwards man. The ignored and violated international law. That is barbaric.




This is subjective. How do you know this? You are making a judgement without any possible means of proving it false or correct.[/quote]

It is not subjective. How do you think creationists and all manner of religionists exist? The fabricate in their mind a history of humanity and the world because they possess no DIRECT memory of it. I mean in terms of culture, history, etc. And I will stand by it, why do you think we have schools? why do you think we have businesses that discriminate on the basis of both skill and schooling?



Yeah but the point is we could make even better progress if people DIDN'T die and we had a permanently stable demographic that we could regulate and predict.



Think about it, someone who's lived longer then you and is intelligent, his opinion and world experiences weigh much more then that of a younger person of the same intelligence level. He's gone through all the stages of maturity and self-reflection on his experiences that a young person has yet to go through, if they even choose to do so.

You have to understand that IGNORANCE and lack of knowledge and experience is why people divide themselves, its not "subjectivity" its the fact that most people will never acquire the true picture that ther is an objective superior view of things and all others are inferior and should not be countenanced, all man's is, is a glorified bacteria, therefore all his personal tastes towards ideas and things are just simply because he does not want to feel FEELINGS of distress or oppression the he subjectively percieves are against his ideas on how a social order should be.

The truth is, its not capitalsim, communism, or an ism or ist, it is the inferiority of the man that makes the world such a horrid and degenerate place. Where one mans betterment comes at the expense of another.





That word has been purposely stigmatized and associated with negativity, this is the same reason why the department of "public relations" did not want to be associated with or have the public see them as "propagandists" even though they were.

Go read some chomsky... these things can occur in more mild forms and not be "conspiracy" its called manufacturing consent or "public relations".

The only thing is that the towns are where water is also desired. You are not talking to a 12 year old, and we could accuse you of being similarly immature, especially now that you gave the 12 year old remark.
We are both well-read on the issue of economics and both have read on socialist economics.

I don't. But then again, to me barbarian has little meaning beyond technological sophistication. Beyond that it is merely a value judgement. At the very least invading Iraq was done in a manner that an evolved being would do it by, in that it was taken with minimal casualties and with high speed. The problem is that neo-con political theory proved not to be that effective in Iraq, partially due to the influences of other nations and issues, leading to the current problems.

The only thing is that such clashes with the idea that men can act freely. People will always die and are responsible for their decisions. We will not regulate everything from some high tower like an autocrat, such would actually make things worse.

No, I don't think that is why the world works. As well, the objective superior view is something that nobody alive will ever know and really has no utility.
The world is shaped by the people in it, however, the world is a relatively fertile place, and getting more so. It is less horrid and degenerate compared to past societies, and as such relative horridness and degenerateness is comparatively low. If you hold the world up to some ideal utopia, then yes, it does have problems, however, being that utopia is an impossibility there is no reason to do that.

Chomsky is on the fringe dude. Are Chomsky and Veblen your only sources of info on the world?

They can make things easier, besides our combatant is currently assuming that we are the incompetents so it is not like he is not assuming our lack of knowledge considering he is handing out reading suggestions, and claiming that we are children.
I have not noted too much to understand, I have dealt with these arguments before, they go around the same path.

Nonsense, there is evil, and no it is not relative, are you saying capitalism and communisms evils are really relative things? I doubt it.






Quote:



You're missing the point of course, is that the GOOD LIFE, the one without fear and anxiety of losing ones livelihood (food, roof, electricity) has nothing to do with obesity, food is cheap, rent, transportation and other bills are not. Next ask yourself this: Why is there unemployment in the first place? Why can't people who can't find jobs simply be paid a fair wage to do what interests them instead? Don't tell me we can't afford it because it's a bunch of BS. We subsidize certain sections of the poor so that they prevent social problems like crime.

Our whole conceptualizations of property and ownership are barbaric though and this is what keeps the poor poor.





Sure we allow them to improve, at some point you have to or you'll have war and revolution, now won't you? You strategically control their growth, that is the goal.



It's not conspiracy, you can plan something on purpose to keep the population in line, its called PSYWAR, i.e. getting people to make the choices you want them to by infecting them with ideas and principles that guide their decisionmaking. This is how population control works, it's beautiful and elegant, people purposely choose not to have children in favor of wealth or some other reason all designed from the get go. Go study it please.

Quote:



Sure but pleasure is an animal quality, and lawn beauty is probably definitely one of the justified waste of resources when people are f*****g starving somewhere else in the world, you can go ahead and overwater your lawn while someone is dying of thirst elsewhere, it is entirely subjective, there is NO objective need to go to great lengths to maintain a lawn for its beauty, when you have millions of people doing the same thing, you are wasting resouces on trivial aesthetics.

Quote:


I laugh in your general direction. Human nature is nothing more then genetic programming, humans are nothing more then biological machines which can be reprogrammed just like our robots at the factory, believe it, it will be coming. Saying human nature "cannot be changed" is a religious statement, maybe you should read up on history? I suppose cannibalistic nature of a population "cannot be changed"... but oh wait it was changed wasn't it, with the arrival off christian missionaries, to Fiji(?)? I believe it was? Optional shared consciousness, optional hive minding, borg-esque, like sharing of universal consciousness... etc. It's not my fault you are so short sighted and anti-intellectual.

Think about all the trillions of cells that make you up, you are one huge collectivist, trillions of cells, programmed to live and die so that you may exist.

You have to understand the people want most of all is survival effieciency and power when it is available.




I didn't say we have perfect control, I said that is the goal of the US controlling strategic resources... a huge difference. I understand the money supply by nature must not be limitless, but this also should mean that the EARNING POWER of INDIVIDUALS should not be limitless, because IEP (infinite earning power) creates such enormous inequality, through minority of the population controlling the the highest value assets that produce profits, power ALWAYS tends to centralize over time in both economic system, and any other system of power. Capitalism attempts to curb it, but it's already out of control and has been for a long time, one only has to look at the scientific data on the distribution of wealth, the top %2 of hte people own more then 50% of the actual wealth, and I certainly do not believe it's because the are better then the other 98%, statistically its not possible... it's simply because they have a monopoly of ownership and the profit system feeds back on itself: The more money you have, the more money you make, because things that people vlaue, tend to take enormous investments of money, and the things that are most profitable, also tend to take the most investment of both money,. work and energy (even money is really a form of social energy).

Why does inflation exist? Why is it that my past time and work is allowed to be devalued? Because the money system is flawed. It allows people, government, military and big businesses to manipulate (or stupidly cause) directly or indirectly how much power a person really has to consume resources in the abstract beyond their control, they can have $5,000, and it becomes devalued because prices generally always increase, once effieciency has been maximized to the limit... assuming slave labour (no costs in wages), you'd still have resource costs and the prices of which never go down, since the emphasis is always on the bottom line.



Not conspiracy theories, every element of history has elements that want to plan and control the shape of the future. Look at what the US did to cuba... you simply show me you do not have enough historical background or are well read enough to engage me.

From the moment you are born you are propagandized to in your home country to accept it's history and idealogy, when much of it is false or ouright erroneous... the winners right the history books remember that. The winners economically can only tell you what they want to tell you.

Considering I spent a few days on a threat defending animal abuse. I really do think that I do argue against absolute evil. I also argue that capitalism though has a better track record from a utilitarian/consequentialist standpoint.

There is unemployment because of the nature of the job market. I believe I went over this with another poster, a lot of our unemployment is a temporary issue where people are in between jobs and the time unemployed is spent looking for a better fit within the system. Fair wage is a useless concept, and I could be interested by alarm clocks, however, the alarm clock business may not be hiring, so the issue of interests is also not worth looking at as people despite their efforts to find the jobs they want most may not necessarily find them. I do not argue about affording, however, we subsidize the poor more out of charity than crime, if you'll note, most of the rhetoric on poverty has nothing to do with crime but rather with charity.
Our concepts on property and ownership were what allowed us to have this wealth in the first place. They are not barbaric at all.
Uh, no? There are other ways to keep people under our thumb, especially given our technology. Really though, given how those countries rejected our involvement earlier in this century and do not have close ties to us, China even being a formerly communist state. I really think that your idea of controlled growth is BS, especially given how some groups in the nation fear how growth will change the international dynamic.

I know what psychological warfare is, the conspiracy is where you claim this is happening right now despite all of the issues with choices we have today. If anything it seems that many of our choices are not that controlled.

Pleasure is a quality held by all people, whether it is animal or not is merely YOUR opinion and I don't live my life based upon what the f**k you consider to be right just or anything of that matter. There is no objective need to do anything, you focus on an objectivity that you cannot prove, however, if I work for my salary, a reward for that effort then I can spend it on what I like.

I laugh at you as well. Human beings are biological machines, certainly, but to program us requires totalitarian effort. I have read up on my history, and I know about my world. Cannibalism was never central to human nature in the first place, so to bring that up is useless, it is a cultural trait. Shared consciousness is not something that most people will desire and to force it upon them will be by nature totalitarian, not only that but it may not even have your desired effects anyway leading to promotion of only that group of humanity. I am not short-sighted and you who hurl insults are truly the anti-intellectual of this debate. Let me put it in plain terms so that even you can understand, if you continue with this path you idiotic piece of s**t, I am going to leave you and your paranoid babblings to yourself you pathetic, f****d up b***h. I think you can understand that, right?
Do any of these cells have personality or individuality? No. They are like ants in the colony. I would not like to be anything similar to these individual cells.
You have to understand that people DIE for things beyond survival and power. To claim that people will die to retain their individuality is no shocker.

A lot of that is your theory, but even then, it must be recognized that the people at the top are not always the same and in fact many got there through their efforts to become rich, so I don't think it is working as you claim that it is.
Inflation exists due to many causes dependent upon what theory is taken. It exists to some measure because of central banking actions, it exists to some measure because of a high demand for goods pushing for more resources than are available, it exists to some measure because of changes in supply causing good prices to go up. The claim is not that capitalism is without imperfections, however, the claim is that it works better than most other systems, and in order to deal with inflationary problems one would have to assume rigid control over the system that would hurt efficiency. However, usually the left pushes for inflation, while the right pushes for stability because inflation increases employment in the short-run. Inflation is also a problem in video game economies where the entire system is controlled except for the actors, so it cannot be stated that this problem is easy to deal with.

No, no, no, the conspiracy is that about the worker farm. I do not deny that our nation has messed with others to deal with investments, however, I do reject the idea of complete macro-management that you are putting forward. Stop insulting me though you bag of s**t!
Um... ok? I have experienced no conflict between any previously held belief and any other belief in this thread. Really, all you have attacked is what you have misconceived about my position.

It does, but this does not mean it, itself is not evil, just because it has a "track record" means little, so have many other cultures and economic systems have had a longer track record then capitalism, and yet they went extinct or transformed as well. There is no economic system immune from the abuse of power. I believe capitalism is necessary but only because man himself is the problem, not because capitalism is superior.





Yes joblessness is bad, but prolonged unemployment is the issue. There should be some kind of permanent subsidy, remember businesses are not these nice things. The discriminate, some people will be constantly discriminated against. Again we do not really have the data on who's out for long periods (or I have not recently looked at the prolonged unemployment figures)

Next, we'dl rethink the fair wage issue if we had a gun to our heads or angry mob breathing down our necks because they were being suffocated out of humane quality of life. You see people like Mises argue for splitting of the pie into infinite chunks, but forget human psychology and that there's a standard of living and depth of inequality people will not take and will become violent over.



I did not say they were not useful, I said they were POORLY conceptualized... Because man is lazy, and did not develo the full complexity and better conceptualization of them, I did not say they were bad or to be abolished but there is more depth to property and ownership... ownership or property is legal access, control or domination, basically a form of legal totalitarianism / dictatorial control over a piece of prroperty. It's not that this is not useful, it's in the way the ideas are manifested and oversimplified abuses and extortion occurs, through ownership. I'll give you an example:

Game developers often have to sell the rights to the games the themselves create because they have no leverage (unequal power distribution) in bargaining, and this is all the result of propertarian concepts when applied to money (social energy) of which there is a limited supply, so whoever owns the most money technically owns (or has the power to own) all members or their ideas directly and indirectly linked to that powerful group or persons, it's social warfare by sucking up all the avialable resources (money), and leaving others without... this is done legally of course, but our economic system has serious problems because of poverty of conceptualization related to the concepts of ownershp, property, rights, etc. What actions are legal, vs illegal. I'm all for private property and rights, but there is a balance between private, versus public, powerful versus the powerless.





You are an animal, animals experience pleasure BECAUSE they are animals. No it is NOT my "opinion", pleasure is nothing more then a chemical reaction in an animal mind, a robot does not experience "pleasure".

Pleasure is nothing more then a drug, a chemical reward for performing some behaviour or integrating and valuing some ideal, that is all pleasure is... a chemical reward.



Yes you can spend it on what you like, but at the same time no you can't spend it on what you like... you can spend it on a SPECTRUM of things that are allowed by the law / system / culture, if you tried to spend it to build a bomb, you certainly would be getting a visit.... you do not have total freedom, there are dictatorial or totalitarian aspects to any society. A truly free society would simply be anarchy (no law, no punishments). After all what if I am rewared with plesaure for killing people? Certainly according to your standard that humans collectively agree pleasure is a good thing then certainly it is against my freedom to prevent me from killing people for pleasure? Or do you agree killing is bad, and on what basis? Total freedom, or limited freedom? Where do we draw the line as a society to what is bad, and what is good, what is allowed, and what is not?




So tell me what is Human nature, define it, what is central to human nature? Lets not toss this vague term around like you know something about it define human nature for me, what is it? give me the specifics on what it is, and the key behaviours it entails.



And had you actually read what I said I said these things were ** optional **, i.e. up to the choice of the individual. No need for such virulent words.



Define personality, define individiuality, did you do a scientific test for this? Would you say animals are the same, mindless, unconscious things?

What about a baby that is born, technically it doesn't have a personality or individuality because it's brain is not developed enough to experience consciousness as we know it right now.




It is my theory, and I do not deny they "earned" that money, but that is only because of monopoly on property, not entirely because of ability.. i.e. right place at right time, with right characteristics.

I do not hate rich people, I dislike their ignorance and irresponsibility. The fact that they know the money supply is limited and they do not do enough to ease the suffering of those at the bottom of the economic pile. They are indirect killers (by hoarding limited supply of money). We know money is limited, but the problem is the economy is a balloon and money the energy or "air" that provides a sane quality of living, sure we can say "it's not their responsibility" but the implicit acceptance of limited supply should bring to bear on onces consciousness, that they've sucked all the air up from the rest of society and certain segments will slowly suffocate and decay because of it, I would not propose just giving it away either, but to attack the problem by taking control of property and willingly subsidizing it as the try to solve it (i.e. say you take the interest off the huge amount of personal money you earn iin your personal accounts and pump it back towards the bottom of society)



I agree because the system itself is flawed, it's a pretty insane system, where you salary or wage, will be worth less in the future based on the constant drive for profit. Profit and supply and demand is the #1 cause of inflation, unfortunately, instead of a central government telling you what you can and can't buy (or afford) it just happens in the abstract, so in my opinion capitalism just makes abstract (i.e. hides the actors responsible, or abstracts people from consequences of their actions). This is not entirely the systems fault, but the advent of specialization, technology, coupled with the market-oriented society and money system.



Ok, you bag of JELLYBEANS!

Last edited by Mordy on 04 Feb 2007, 6:27 pm, edited 1 time in total.