News Can Socialism Provide a Stable Political Framework?

[2CentsWorth]

...Yet a clown like Marx is held today as a God and a prophet

A description more befitting of...Bush? Whereas even if you don't agree with Marx's theories, he was obviously a very intelligent man.

One question I like to pose to people on the Left (that always goes unanswered) is this one: where are all the rich Socialist countries to imitate, and the poor, failed, Capitalist ones?

What country is Socialist that does not practice some amount of capitalism, and what country that is Capitalist doesn't practice some amount of socialism?

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

This is not true, Russ - the experts do not agree that poverty levels are dropping. In their paper Unknown: The Extent, Distribution, and Trend of Global Income Poverty. Pogge and Reddy clearly state:

…we do not yet know with any reasonable degree of confidence how many poor people there are in the world, where they live, and how their number has changed over time.

I thought we were discussing capitalist society. As far as I know, even if it does account for quite a bit of it, the world as a whole is not capitalist. Also I do not believe Russ meant all experts and just because these two may not agree with the rest does not mean there is significant dissent on the matter. In response to your statements regarding information sources this is the reason why some of us won't readily accept the opinions of those that aren't generally recognized as experts in the field. At the same time if you find something that you aren't sure we will find credible yet you think feel it is then go ahead and profer it. Russ, Loseyourname, myself, or somebody will very possibly take the time to point out any merits or flaws they see in it.

Marxism sees poverty not so much as in the shortfall of means in meeting needs but in the low level of development of human needs. The person who wants only for their next meal experiences real poverty; the artist in her garret whose heart’s desire is a sublime insight or subtle nuance for their next artistic work is poor, but not as poor as the person who has no idea of art at all.

The poverty that communists seek to abolish with the overthrow of capitalism, is not so much the inequality of distribution, but the poverty of development of human sensibilities:continued...

This seems to hurt your argument about Marxism being scientific more than help. It's philosophical as opposed to scientific. The "poverty of development of human sensibilities" is subjective and not readily quantifiable. Still if we were to humour that line of argument it could easily be pointed out that your average citizen today in a capitalist society has more access to better education then they did a hundred years ago. Due specifically to capitalism your average citizen has more access to art, music, and literature than one hundred years ago. Just about every person here in the US owns a radio or can for a rather small amount of money and will be able to listen to all of the composers that Marx was probably a fan of and was sad that the vast majority were not able to enjoy themselves. As far as the issue of capitalists taking advantage of and hurting the consumers by adding more and more "objects" that is really a matter of the consumers self indulgence and greed. It is because of the flaw in the consumer, not a flaw in the system, that they allow themselves to be taken advantage of this way. A populace will not take kindly to a system that will not allow them the freedom of their own stupidity. And the system that will cater to these stupid creatures and successfully advance will win in the end.

Also, on the side here... None of us here think you are a jerk. With the way you present yourself I think more than one of us has wondered though. I'd just like to point out that you needn't apologize so profusely. The majority of your posts are spent in apology and all I get out of wading through all of it are a few skant tid bits of your arguement. It's nice to see someone be so polite but at points it gets really annoying. I would definitely appreciate it personally if you were to concentrate more of your effort on the discussion at hand. And just to be safe here, again, I do not think you are a jerk. You actually seem to be a very nice person. Admittedly though when I first started reading your posts on PF I began to think you were trying to make yourself out as a victim as a tactic to encourage people to sympathize with you.

 

[wasteofo2]

One question I like to pose to people on the Left (that always goes unanswered) is this one: where are all the rich Socialist countries to imitate, and the poor, failed, Capitalist ones?

When you're talking about Communism and Socialism, it's important to make the distinction. Communism is the ultimate end described in The Communist Manifesto, where the proletariat collectively owns everything. Socialism is the transitional stage between Capitalism and Communism.

That being said, there are many rich Socialist nations out there. Hell, I'd even consider the USA a Socialist nation, as it's clearly not strictly Capitalist and does have things like workers unions, minimum wage, welfare, medicare, social security, publicly owned land, restrictions on business practices, a progressive tax system, and all sorts of other things of that nature.

But besides the USA, there are countries like Sweeden which are very well off and very far away from pure Capitalism.

It's important to remember that Socialism is a very subjective term, and could be used to describe pretty much any economic system that has a basis in Capitalism but makes efforts to re-distribute wealth, or leans towards achieving (to any degree) any of the goals set out in the Communist Manifesto.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

When you're talking about Communism and Socialism, it's important to make the distinction. Communism is the ultimate end described in The Communist Manifesto, where the proletariat collectively owns everything. Socialism is the transitional stage between Capitalism and Communism...
...It's important to remember that Socialism is a very subjective term, and could be used to describe pretty much any economic system that has a basis in Capitalism but makes efforts to re-distribute wealth, or leans towards achieving (to any degree) any of the goals set out in the Communist Manifesto.

In regards to the arguements over the viability of socialism and communism I would have to agree that they are very possibly inevitable so long as the world continues to advance. I think in the future there will be a sort of technocratic socialist system in place. At some point technology will be capable of doing everything that needs to be done as far as menial labour and there will no longer be a need for a lower class of citizens. We will be able to take more and more for granted. Like a Star Trek utopia. I would say it still pretty far off though and I don't neccissarily think a revolution will be needed to achieve it. Revolution more likely would hamper it.

 

[russ_watters]

Hmm, lots of links here - it's going to take me a while to look all these up.

Don't concern yourself with those links too much. While they are interesting, the are not really the main argument here. One of the reasons I don't like to give too much beyond specific facts is it allows people to take their eye off the ball.

I have a busy day today, but I'll respond to some in depth later...

 

[alexandra]

Also, on the side here... None of us here think you are a jerk. With the way you present yourself I think more than one of us has wondered though. I'd just like to point out that you needn't apologize so profusely. The majority of your posts are spent in apology and all I get out of wading through all of it are a few skant tid bits of your arguement. It's nice to see someone be so polite but at points it gets really annoying. I would definitely appreciate it personally if you were to concentrate more of your effort on the discussion at hand. And just to be safe here, again, I do not think you are a jerk. You actually seem to be a very nice person. Admittedly though when I first started reading your posts on PF I began to think you were trying to make yourself out as a victim as a tactic to encourage people to sympathize with you.

Hmm, no - I was not trying to be manipulative, but I obviously gave off that impression. And yes, TheStatutoryApe, can do - 'No more Mr Nice Guy' from me And from now on (barring this post) I will address only the substance of arguments and not personalise the discussion. Now I need some time to formulate responses...

 

[alexandra]

It would seem that one would need to view so called standard of living according to current methods of exchange. For example, we now have a token economy which includes credit cards, etc. that can allow people to appear to have more material wealth than their real means. You can't imagine how many Americans own nothing, and never will because of debt and bad credit--a kind of never ending servitude.

The points you raised led me to look for information about credit and bankruptcy statistics. This is what I have found so far, and it all supports what you wrote above 2CentsWorth:

US Bankruptcy statistics - http://www.bankruptcyaction.com/USbankstats.htm

Although the title at the top of the web page is ‘Bankruptcy Filings Drop in Calendar Year 2004’, if you scroll down the page there is a graph showing a rise in number of personal (consumer) bankruptcies from 1980 onwards. Also interesting is the information just beneath the graph: ‘Bankruptcy Profile’ – two thirds of all people filing for bankruptcy have lost their jobs.

Also interesting is the title of the original source of information the ‘Bankruptcy Profile’ was obtained from: The Fragile Middle Class: Americans in Debt;
Elizabeth Warren, Harvard Law School; Smith Business Solutions

Analysis of consumer bankruptcies (in the US) http://www.bankruptcyaction.com/USbankstats2.htm#Consumerbankruptcies

Theories regarding the causes of an increase in the number of bankruptcies in the US since 1985 include outstanding consumer credit and increasing unemployment. The graph at the bottom of page showing a similar cycle for Canada.

I also found some statistical information that supports your point about peoples’ reliance on credit:

The US Treasury’s summary tables of current public debt (individual and government) - http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdpdodt.htm

The US Treasury’s summary tables of annual public debt from 1997 to 2004 (individual and government again) - http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdpdodt.htm#years

The figures show a consistent total increase in debt over the years.

Some relevant Marxist political-economic theory for those who are interested in exploring it
In 1900, the Marxist Rosa Luxemburg wrote ‘Reform or Revolution’, in which she argues against the view that capitalism can adapt itself indefinitely to the economic crises it engenders:

The scientific basis of socialism rests, as is well known, on three principal results of capitalist development. First, on the growing anarchy of capitalist economy, leading inevitably to its ruin. Second, on the progressive socialisation of the process of production, which creates the germs of the future social order. And third, on the increased organisation and consciousness of the proletarian class, which constitutes the active factor in the coming revolution - http://www.marxists.org/archive/luxemburg/1900/reform-revolution/ch01.htm

She also outlines the role of credit in capitalist economies in Chapter II of the same book - http://www.marxists.org/archive/luxemburg/1900/reform-revolution/ch02.htm . I have included a brief extract for those interested – it is difficult reading, I admit, but one cannot avoid complexity when trying to understand a complex world.

Credit has diverse applications in capitalism. Its two most important functions are to extend production and to facilitate exchange. When the inner tendency of capitalist production to extend boundlessly strikes against the restricted dimensions of private property, credit appears as a means of surmounting these limits in a particular capitalist manner. Credit, through shareholding, combines in one magnitude of capital a large number of individual capitals. It makes available to each capitalist the use of other capitalists’ money–in the form of industrial credit. As commercial credit it accelerates the exchange of commodities and therefore the return of capital into production, and thus aids the entire cycle of the process of production. The manner in which these two principle functions of credit influence the formation of crises is quite obvious….

it [ie, credit] increases disproportionately the capacity of the extension of production and thus constitutes an inner motive force that is constantly pushing production to exceed the limits of the market. But credit strikes from two sides. After having (as a factor of the process of production) provoked overproduction, credit (as a factor of exchange) destroys, during the crisis, the very productive forces it itself created. At the first symptom of the crisis, credit melts away….

Besides having these two principal results, credit also influences the formation of crises in the following ways. It constitutes the technical means of making available to an entrepreneur the capital of other owners. It stimulates at the same time the bold and unscrupulous utilisation of the property of others. That is, it leads to speculation. Credit not only aggravates the crisis in its capacity as a dissembled means of exchange, it also helps to bring and extend the crisis by transforming all exchange into an extremely complex and artificial mechanism that, having a minimum of metallic money as a real base, is easily disarranged at the slightest occasion.

 

[alexandra]

I just found a gem regarding Popper and Marx, I really encourage those interested and with University access to read it:

Popper's Critique of Scientific Socialism, or Carnap and His Coworkers
Notturno Philosophy of the Social Sciences.1999; 29: 32-61.

Now I wonder, how much, if anything, can I quote from this paper here without doing something illegal or immoral?

If it's not public access, and you have to access it via a uni website, I'd say it's copyright-protected so you couldn't quote too much from it here, Joel.

 

[alexandra]

I'm not certain of the precise stats regarding class mobility in the United States, but I know that Russ has posted numbers before. Perhaps he can dig those up again for us. Something rather anecdotal, but interesting nonetheless, that I read a while back, was a history of the city of New York. it detailed how families would immigrate from Europe with just about nothing. The parents would work for beans and save up everything they could to send their children to college. After gaining an education, the children would then move into the middle class of the city and many were even able to lift their parents out of poverty as well. This was apparently the way the entire social system of the city worked for a very long time. Almost nobody ever came to New York with money; they came there and made money. I doubt there are any example in contemporary society that are so dramatic, but it should at least serve to illustrate the possibilities. Even today, the financial aid system makes it possible for children who grew up in relative poverty to get a college education and enter the middle class. Groups that have been historically disadvantaged are even favored when receiving aid - not from the government necessarily, but when was the last time you heard of a 'White American College Scholarship Fund?'.

Ok, I was curious enough (and too impatient to wait) to look this up myself. I found this interesting information on a publisher's website - http://college.hmco.com/history/readerscomp/rcah/html/ah_060300_mobilitysoci.htm .

Unfortunately, we encounter the problem of definitions again:

...scholars disagree as to what constitutes social or economic position and how to measure vertical mobility. Moreover, their judgments are not always persuasive. One historian counts as "successful" persons who after ten years have become richer, and as "unsuccessful" those who have grown poorer. By this standard, the pauper who amassed ten dollars over the decade is a success, and the millionaire who lost the same amount is a failure.

Nevertheless, here is a brief extract from the same url summarising the scholarly findings regarding the question of class mobility in the twentieth century:

Twentieth-century mobility has been intensively studied, above all by sociologists...For the most part, the well-to-do and highly successful were born to advantage. What upward movement people experienced was usually "small-distanced": though they might hold a great variety of jobs in the course of a lifetime, most people in the end arrived at an occupational destination similar in prestige to the job they started out with. On the other hand, structural change, such as the sharp decline in agricultural work or the increasing replacement of blue-collar by white-collar work, gave many sons and daughters jobs that commanded greater prestige—if not higher real wages—than their parents had earned. After World War II, African-Americans in the North enjoyed a significant enhancement in work opportunities, and all Americans benefited from a remarkable increase in college enrollments. But differentiation in the standing and reputation of schools or professions was usually masked by the quantitative data that are the stuff of statistical studies. In life it mattered a great deal whether one attended a slum school or a prestigious prep school, or if one was a lawyer, whether one scratched out a living as a court-assigned attorney for the indigent or earned a large income as solicitor to the corporate mighty.

This information seems to support the argument that whatever class mobility does occur is, for the most part, 'small-distanced'. This extract also makes the interesting point that while one may point to an increase in the number of people who have had formal education, it matters a great deal what sort of education one gets and what sort of job one gets ultimately as a result of that education.

 

[alexandra]

I thought we were discussing capitalist society. As far as I know, even if it does account for quite a bit of it, the world as a whole is not capitalist.

I AM discussing capitalist society. Please tell me which parts of the world are not capitalist? I'm not sure what you mean by '...the world as a whole is not capitalist', and I cannot respond intelligently unless you make your meaning clear.

 

[alexandra]

Also I do not believe Russ meant all experts and just because these two may not agree with the rest does not mean there is significant dissent on the matter.

But the fact that not all experts agree is significant – read what Russ actually wrote

edit: In the last thread there were a few times I treated some facts as self-evident, and I apologize for that. That said, I still consider such facts as the decreasing poverty rate and the increasing world GDP to be something that everyone - and certainly someone with some education on the subject - should be aware of. I'm still a little incredulous that you would require substantiation of such things…

This quote comes from page 1 of this thread if you want to check that I have not misquoted him. Besides, I’d imagine that there are more than two economists (actually, I have quoted a third previously) who do not agree! If you want, I can tediously search for more economists with this view, but I think it is very remiss of all of you not to check your own information before responding to my arguments (there seem to be different rules of accountability/evidence-requirements in place here).

 

[alexandra]

Also, on the side here... None of us here think you are a jerk. With the way you present yourself I think more than one of us has wondered though. I'd just like to point out that you needn't apologize so profusely. The majority of your posts are spent in apology and all I get out of wading through all of it are a few skant tid bits of your arguement. It's nice to see someone be so polite but at points it gets really annoying. I would definitely appreciate it personally if you were to concentrate more of your effort on the discussion at hand. And just to be safe here, again, I do not think you are a jerk. You actually seem to be a very nice person. Admittedly though when I first started reading your posts on PF I began to think you were trying to make yourself out as a victim as a tactic to encourage people to sympathize with you.

Ok, this is really, really bugging me. I am not seeking sympathy for my views/myself in any way. I do not need support from anyone at all; I am capable of developing my own arguments. And if people want to think of me as a jerk for thinking differently to them, so be it - I absolutely do not care. I will interpret reality as I see it no matter what.

 

[alexandra]

I would say you seem to be right. Any system of competition is going to, at the very least, greatly favor those who are better at competing. The thing is, if we're considering Marxism as the alternative, which would we prefer? A system in which the smart and innovative (and of course those with pre-existing wealth) are favored or one in which no one ever advances?

In keeping with the 'new, improved' me, I'm going to argue against you ruthlessly here. Even though the USSR was NOT a socialist society, it was nevertheless not based on competition. One result was widespread intellectual brilliance in all fields of human endeavour (including in the sciences, the arts, and in the production of genius-level chess players - if you insist, I can spend hours looking for acceptable evidence in the form of examples; just let me know), as well as amazing technological achievements (including beating the arch capitalist USA in the space race!) It is ONLY in a society NOT based on competition that human beings can realize their potential. It is only when people's interests and abilities are nurtured (regardless of whether or not they have the MONEY to attend good schools and top universities) that they will develop to their full potential. This is precisely what Marx was talking about regarding the poverty of capitalist societies. Capitalist societies make cripples out of people - you can only 'realise' your potential if you have the money to do so.

EDIT: And don't bring up the argument of 'scholarships' to the worthy. Those are mere breadcrumbs relative to the extreme, obscene wealth of the wealthy... little more than pocket change (which, undoubtedly, can also be claimed as a tax deduction!).

 

[alexandra]

This seems to hurt your argument about Marxism being scientific more than help. It's philosophical as opposed to scientific. The "poverty of development of human sensibilities" is subjective and not readily quantifiable.

No, I disagree. It does not hurt my argument; it just demonstrates that when you are analysing complexity it does not do at all to analyse it simplistically, and that this is something Marx was well aware of. His theory is very difficult both to read and understand, precisely because it is a well-developed theory that drew from many disciplines (including Philosophy, of course). The 'poverty of development of human sensibilities' is precisely what is at stake here. As I responded to loseyourname above, as far as I am concerned this is one of the worst aspects of capitalism - that it retards real human development in the areas that matter.

Still if we were to humour that line of argument it could easily be pointed out that your average citizen today in a capitalist society has more access to better education then they did a hundred years ago. Due specifically to capitalism your average citizen has more access to art, music, and literature than one hundred years ago. Just about every person here in the US owns a radio or can for a rather small amount of money and will be able to listen to all of the composers that Marx was probably a fan of and was sad that the vast majority were not able to enjoy themselves.

Please read my response to loseyourname on this issue. Scientifically, culturally and technologically, the USSR (only recently out of the 'dark ages' of feudalism, and dragged out by the 1917 revolution itself) was more advanced than the greatest capitalist country. Do you know that the USSR's technological achievements in the space race, for example, resulted in a complete overhaul (ongoing to this day) of the US education system? To this day, I am reading articles that seriously discuss concerns regarding low educational achievements in the US, especially in the fields of mathematics and science. If you want, I can find countless references on this issue to support what I am saying; let me know.

And, by the way, I want to point out very clearly that I am NOT stating that the USSR was a socialist/communist society; it was not. It was, however, not a society based on competition in the so-called 'free' market; it housed its citizens, and educated them, and if they were interested in/good at ballet (for example), it nurtured their abilities/interests. Sad to see the state that the Russian Federation is in now -poverty has increased, so has homelessness and disease and general want in all areas. But that's great, because a few corrupt individuals are making great fortunes out of the general misery, just as things should be: the survival of the most ruthless (ie, capitalism).

As far as the issue of capitalists taking advantage of and hurting the consumers by adding more and more "objects" that is really a matter of the consumers self indulgence and greed. It is because of the flaw in the consumer, not a flaw in the system, that they allow themselves to be taken advantage of this way.

No, it is not. It is a result of advertising and brainwashing and the deliberate impoverishment 'of development of human sensibilities', just as Marx wrote over a hundred years ago.

A populace will not take kindly to a system that will not allow them the freedom of their own stupidity. And the system that will cater to these stupid creatures and successfully advance will win in the end.

I may have to agree with you on this one, unfortunately. There seems to be overwhelming evidence that you are correct.

 

[alexandra]

Another philosophical objection that can be raised against Marx is his use of the dialectic. Originally conceived of by Kant as pure reason attempting to uncover empirical truth and instead resulting in metaphysical paradoxes, the dialectic was adopted by Hegel as a system of logic that was able not just to govern the relations between ideas, but to uncover truth. The dialectic as thesis, antithesis, and synthesis was thought by Hegel to be the only true logic, a logic that governed all of reality. He viewed truth and history both as evolving by means of the dialectic toward an end goal of perfect reality that was the transcendence of all paradox - an almost Taoist notion, only with the resolution posited as an end-goal rather than an eternality. There are two objections that can be raised against Marx's use of the dialectic to predict future history. The first is that the dialectic is not a legitimate form of logic. As Russell said of Hegel, "the worse your logic, the more interesting the consequences to which it gives rise." Antecedent to Hegel and Marx came Frege and Russell, who demonstrated decisively that logic does not uncover truth, nor does it say anything about the nature of being or empirical reality. Logic simply governs the relation of ideas by means of functional operation on truth-values. The thesis-antithesis-synthesis model is fine as a means of conflict resolution, but it is not a logic, nor does it tell us anything about the structure or evolution of reality.

Marxist dialectics do not adopt this simplistic view that logic can tell us anything about the evolution of reality. Leon Trotsky provides a very readable interpretation of the Marxist conception of the dialectic in The ABC of Materialist Dialectics - available online at http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/works/1939/1939-abc.htm . To illustrate, I will quote a single sentence: “The dialectic and formal logic bear a relationship similar to that between higher and lower mathematics.” If you’re genuinely interested in reading how Marxists use the term, you can read the article (it’s very brief, and quite interesting in its own right as a piece of philosophy).

The second objection is simply that history is not teleological, as Hegel and Marx would have us believe. It does not evolve toward an end-goal of the perfect utopian society that is the resolution of all apparent paradox. History cannot be predicted in that way. There is no theoretical crystal-ball that can be used to look forward and say "there, that is what will happen." Even if the universe does operate by strict determinism (which is certainly not a known fact), it has generally been acknowledge, since Newton, by everyone other than Hegel and Marx, that it operates efficiently, or mechanically, not teleologically.

Marx would NOT have us believe that history is teleological. As I’ve explained elsewhere, Marx did not ‘predict’ the evolution of capitalism into socialism, and I would add to that that he went to a great deal of trouble to distinguish his theory of socialism (which is referred to as ‘scientific socialism’) from previous/other versions of socialism which one must justifiably call ‘utopian socialism’. Utopian socialists believe that one can convince the wealthy to ‘be nice’ and ‘share’; scientific socialists do not. Marx said that socialism will only ever be achieved through the efforts of human agency – just as it took a political revolution (the French Revolution) to overthrow feudalism and replace it with capitalism, whether or not socialism is ever achieved will depend on the actions of people. The wealthy will not be convinced to ‘be nice’ and ‘share’, and left to its own devices, history will not magically achieve a ‘nice’ and ‘fair society. These things have to be fought for. This is what Marx said, and this is why Marxism is classified as a ‘conflict theory’ in Sociology.

 

[loseyourname]

In keeping with the 'new, improved' me, I'm going to argue against you ruthlessly here. Even though the USSR was NOT a socialist society, it was nevertheless not based on competition. One result was widespread intellectual brilliance in all fields of human endeavour (including in the sciences, the arts, and in the production of genius-level chess players - if you insist, I can spend hours looking for acceptable evidence in the form of examples; just let me know), as well as amazing technological achievements (including beating the arch capitalist USA in the space race!) It is ONLY in a society NOT based on competition that human beings can realize their potential. It is only when people's interests and abilities are nurtured (regardless of whether or not they have the MONEY to attend good schools and top universities) that they will develop to their full potential. This is precisely what Marx was talking about regarding the poverty of capitalist societies. Capitalist societies make cripples out of people - you can only 'realise' your potential if you have the money to do so.

How happy were these people in the USSR, with all this brilliant art and intellectual wealth? I'll leave it to you to look for whatever quantification of happiness you think can be found, but I can again provide an anecdote here. I used to be very active in the Armenian community when I still lived in Los Angeles. In fact, the part of the city I was in (East Hollywood) was populated almost entirely by immigrants from former Soviet Republics. Invariably, every last one I talked to lived a better life here. Most would prefer to be home, because it is home, but the economic conditions there made it difficult to survive. There were people that had been doctors and engineers that made more money here as school teachers or social workers. Heck, my high school physics teacher had been an engineer in the vaunted Soviet space program, but apparently being a high school teacher in the US was a better option. All these people would probably agree that culture in the USSR was far superior, but that had nothing to do with lack of capitalism. Russia, Armenia, and most of the other Orthodox nations have long, rich literary and artistic traditions, and the US does not. We've just never been a very artistic country; our best painters and writers have been satirists or ironical. Nonetheless, I would argue that Marx's and Engels' homelands, Germany and England, have even richer artistic and literary traditions than do the Orthodox nations of the former USSR, and this was true even during the height of 'decadent capitalism.'

EDIT: And don't bring up the argument of 'scholarships' to the worthy. Those are mere breadcrumbs relative to the extreme, obscene wealth of the wealthy... little more than pocket change (which, undoubtedly, can also be claimed as a tax deduction!).

So what? You're just lapsing into the relative viewpoint again. Is a college fund less valuable because someone else has more? Do socialist nations provide a college education for more people? I'm going to college for free, Alex, and that's without any special scholarship funds. That's entirely off of federal and state aid, need-based rather than merit-based. Even if you can't get any aid, community colleges in this state cost $19 per unit. That's $238, or about two weeks worth of pay working minimum wage, for a full-time semester load. Granted, books and transportation will add a little to the cost, and not every state is as cheap as California, but even so. There is almost no excuse for any second generation person in this country to not be in the middle class. You might be in a position like Russ' or mine, where it's quite possible that you're technically considered to be living in poverty by people like you, but we're happy anyway. We have more than enough to provide for ourselves and don't consider it any less valuable simply because Paris Hilton has more.

Furthermore, anyone that wants to be cultured certainly can be. So what if there isn't a whole lot of great American art? I particularly love Irish and French literature; German and Italian painting. A museum trip is $5 (sometimes optional) and used books $2-$10. Sometimes I'll see an Italian opera or a British play for a little more. Everyone here has that option and is fully responsible for whether or not such things matter to them.

 

[loseyourname]

Marxist dialectics do not adopt this simplistic view that logic can tell us anything about the evolution of reality. Leon Trotsky provides a very readable interpretation of the Marxist conception of the dialectic in The ABC of Materialist Dialectics - available online at http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/works/1939/1939-abc.htm . To illustrate, I will quote a single sentence: “The dialectic and formal logic bear a relationship similar to that between higher and lower mathematics.” If you’re genuinely interested in reading how Marxists use the term, you can read the article (it’s very brief, and quite interesting in its own right as a piece of philosophy).

Wow. No offense, Alex, but that is a huge sprawling mess that does not deserve designation as proper philosophy. That's theory development material there. I'll get to this in more detail later with my specific philosophical objections, but suffice it to say that it is the fact that pieces like this are read as anything other than historical mistakes that makes me question whether or not Marxists are aware that there has been philosophical progress since 1850. Apparently even Trotsky was not aware of that fact. Please don't respond until I have laid out exactly why this is one of the worst pieces of philosophy that has ever been linked to here.

 

[alexandra]

Wow. No offense, Alex, but that is a huge sprawling mess that does not deserve designation as proper philosophy. That's theory development material there. I'll get to this in more detail later with my specific philosophical objections, but suffice it to say that it is the fact that pieces like this are read as anything other than historical mistakes that makes me question whether or not Marxists are aware that there has been philosophical progress since 1850. Apparently even Trotsky was not aware of that fact. Please don't respond until I have laid out exactly why this is one of the worst pieces of philosophy that has ever been linked to here.

Ok, I'm not responding - just letting you know I've read this and will wait to read your developed argument. By the way, I have NOT majored in philosophy myself - I have only formally studied a first year unit in it and have read bits and pieces as they are presented in other discipline areas. I'm just asking that you try and phrase your response appropriately so that a non-expert can understand it.

 

[alexandra]

How happy were these people in the USSR, with all this brilliant art and intellectual wealth? I'll leave it to you to look for whatever quantification of happiness you think can be found, but I can again provide an anecdote here. I used to be very active in the Armenian community when I still lived in Los Angeles. In fact, the part of the city I was in (East Hollywood) was populated almost entirely by immigrants from former Soviet Republics. Invariably, every last one I talked to lived a better life here. Most would prefer to be home, because it is home, but the economic conditions there made it difficult to survive. There were people that had been doctors and engineers that made more money here as school teachers or social workers. Heck, my high school physics teacher had been an engineer in the vaunted Soviet space program, but apparently being a high school teacher in the US was a better option.

Yes, I do not doubt what you write here about people you have met in the US. But what about all those people who are now trapped living in the Russian Federation? I KNOW I have to back up my arguments about how their lives have become much worse now than they ever were before; however, it will take me time to find credible evidence, and I can't do this right now. When I do find the evidence, I will post it.

So what? You're just lapsing into the relative viewpoint again. Is a college fund less valuable because someone else has more? Do socialist nations provide a college education for more people? I'm going to college for free, Alex, and that's without any special scholarship funds. That's entirely off of federal and state aid, need-based rather than merit-based.

The fact that you are going to college for free is not a good argument. How many people get such an opportunity in the US? More importantly, how many people miss out?

Even if you can't get any aid, community colleges in this state cost $19 per unit. That's $238, or about two weeks worth of pay working minimum wage, for a full-time semester load.

Some questions, because I simply do not know: what is a community college? Is it the same as a university? Are there different 'quality' universities in the US? If so, which universities to the wealthy go to, and how do those universities differ from other universities? These questions are relevant. As I pointed out in a previous response to you in this thread (the one where I quoted an extract from a history book), it is too general to say 'many people are educated'. The question is: what sort of education do they get?

There is almost no excuse for any second generation person in this country to not be in the middle class.

So who are the 'working poor' I read so much about? Is it a myth that they exist? There are people in the US, I have read, who have three jobs. They work incredible hours, and STILL can't make ends meet. Is it their laziness that prevents them from being middle class? I guess it must be.

You might be in a position like Russ' or mine, where it's quite possible that you're technically considered to be living in poverty by people like you, but we're happy anyway. We have more than enough to provide for ourselves and don't consider it any less valuable simply because Paris Hilton has more.

I'm really not sure what you mean here. Do you mean I, personally, would think of you as living in poverty? I'm perplexed. Anyway, I'll clear this up - no, I myself am not wealthy by any stretch of the imagination. I do not want for anything, but I am not wealthy. Also, I am not motivated by jealousy: I would not WANT wealth if anyone gave it to me. So what drives me? Here it is: I am incensed - totally outraged - by the terrible things that are happening in this world. I truly believe that I would be less than human if I weren't. That's it; my whole argument. This is what drives me - a desire for justice and for humans to be humane, and a rage that they can be so otherwise and tolerate a system that distorts them in that way. It is not human nature to be greedy. Human beings are intelligent - they can get beyond 'nature'. I believe this.

Furthermore, anyone that wants to be cultured certainly can be. So what if there isn't a whole lot of great American art? I particularly love Irish and French literature; German and Italian painting. A museum trip is $5 (sometimes optional) and used books $2-$10. Sometimes I'll see an Italian opera or a British play for a little more. Everyone here has that option and is fully responsible for whether or not such things matter to them.

Have you ever read about Maslow's hierarchy of human needs? One cannot pursue culture if one's physical and safety needs are not first met. If you are homeless, or up to your ears in debt and living on credit - if you are worrying because you can't get health insurance, or don't have money to send your kids to a good school/university, how could you possibly worry about culture?

 

[2CentsWorth]

Also, on the side here... None of us here think you are a jerk. With the way you present yourself I think more than one of us has wondered though. I'd just like to point out that you needn't apologize so profusely. The majority of your posts are spent in apology and all I get out of wading through all of it are a few skant tid bits of your arguement. It's nice to see someone be so polite but at points it gets really annoying. I would definitely appreciate it personally if you were to concentrate more of your effort on the discussion at hand. And just to be safe here, again, I do not think you are a jerk. You actually seem to be a very nice person. Admittedly though when I first started reading your posts on PF I began to think you were trying to make yourself out as a victim as a tactic to encourage people to sympathize with you.

In trying to be objective, my observation has been that members tend to defer to other members rather than providing their own arguments, and then in so doing, tend to provide a lot of rhetoric with little or no references to back up their remarks. In the meantime, alexandra obviously has spent a great deal of time doing research to provide reliable information. alexandra--thank you for the information about credit--it is very interesting and good information--and please accept my apologies for not doing that research myself.

 

[loseyourname]

Yes, I do not doubt what you write here about people you have met in the US. But what about all those people who are now trapped living in the Russian Federation? I KNOW I have to back up my arguments about how their lives have become much worse now than they ever were before; however, it will take me time to find credible evidence, and I can't do this right now. When I do find the evidence, I will post it.

There is no need for you to find evidence that the life of people in former Soviet republics is likely worse now than before the fall. I will grant you that. If you are claiming a causal relationship between the liberalization of markets and this decline in quality of life, I would ask you to substantiate that. My guess is that the utter economic and moral bankruptcy that characterized the Soviet Union before its fall and the lingering effects in the form of recovery and widespread corruption have a lot more to do with it.

The fact that you are going to college for free is not a good argument. How many people get such an opportunity in the US? More importantly, how many people miss out?

The important question to ask is why people miss out. I qualified by virtue of one fact and one fact alone: I did not have a sufficient savings or income to pay for college on my own. For that reason, and that reason alone, I am going to college for free. It was not difficult to qualify; I just had to not have any money.

Some questions, because I simply do not know: what is a community college? Is it the same as a university? Are there different 'quality' universities in the US?

A community college is an option for people who either do not want to pay for a four-year university or cannot qualify for acceptance. One can take the first two years of instruction at a community college and then transfer to a university.

Of course there are universities of different quality in the US, as there are everywhere.

If so, which universities to the wealthy go to, and how do those universities differ from other universities?

To use your own language, "Which universities do the wealthy go to?" Is not an answerable question. I would imagine there is some positive correlation between family income and the cost of attendance of the university being attended, but that is hardly going to tell you where anyone person goes to school.

These questions are relevant. As I pointed out in a previous response to you in this thread (the one where I quoted an extract from a history book), it is too general to say 'many people are educated'. The question is: what sort of education do they get?

The more expensive universities are generally the best rated ones. It is important to note, however, that almost all of these universities, because of their wealth, are able to guarantee that 100% of financial need will be met for all students that qualify for admission. That means you basically pay what you are able to pay. In theory it is no more difficult financially for a poor person to attend than a rich person.

So who are the 'working poor' I read so much about? Is it a myth that they exist? There are people in the US, I have read, who have three jobs. They work incredible hours, and STILL can't make ends meet. Is it their laziness that prevents them from being middle class? I guess it must be.

I wouldn't call someone working three jobs 'lazy.' Laziness, however, is hardly the cardinal sin when you are trying to get ahead in the world. Working three jobs, likely minimum wage jobs, is not lazy; it is stupid. There are no admissions standards for community colleges or for vocational schools. Anyone can get in and, after that, it is a matter of applying your hard work skills to your schoolwork whether or not you will succeed there. A degree is no guarantee of wealth, but it will guarantee that one is able to obtain employment above minimum wage and is able to provide for oneself working only one job.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

No, I disagree. It does not hurt my argument; it just demonstrates that when you are analysing complexity it does not do at all to analyse it simplistically, and that this is something Marx was well aware of. His theory is very difficult both to read and understand, precisely because it is a well-developed theory that drew from many disciplines (including Philosophy, of course). The 'poverty of development of human sensibilities' is precisely what is at stake here. As I responded to loseyourname above, as far as I am concerned this is one of the worst aspects of capitalism - that it retards real human development in the areas that matter.

Perhaps we will have to agree to disagree then. I believe that what he is speaking of is something influenced by many variables. I think though that his description here is rather simplistic. It's much easier to describe vastly complex systems in abstract philosophic terms but for the ideas to be workable scientifically you need to express them in numbers, equations, and overall more concrete terms. The 'poverty of development of human sensibilities' may be at stake but it's definition is also subjective and not really something you can pin down scientifically speaking. You have already seen the problems we have here discussing poverty in monetary concerns.

Please read my response to loseyourname on this issue. Scientifically, culturally and technologically, the USSR (only recently out of the 'dark ages' of feudalism, and dragged out by the 1917 revolution itself) was more advanced than the greatest capitalist country. Do you know that the USSR's technological achievements in the space race, for example, resulted in a complete overhaul (ongoing to this day) of the US education system? To this day, I am reading articles that seriously discuss concerns regarding low educational achievements in the US, especially in the fields of mathematics and science. If you want, I can find countless references on this issue to support what I am saying; let me know.

I think loseyourname has responded rather well to this already.
And crap, I need to get going. I'll definitely pick this up tomorrow.

 

[loseyourname]

In trying to be objective, my observation has been that members tend to defer to other members rather than providing their own arguments, and then in so doing, tend to provide a lot of rhetoric with little or no references to back up their remarks. In the meantime, alexandra obviously has spent a great deal of time doing research to provide reliable information. alexandra--thank you for the information about credit--it is very interesting and good information--and please accept my apologies for not doing that research myself.

Don't be patronizing. I'm working on a thesis. Ape may very well be busy doing the same. He and I can do more research and provide some numbers once the semester is over. For now, this is the best I have. It's better than not contributing, or contributing nothing but jabs at other members.

 

[alexandra]

In trying to be objective, my observation has been that members tend to defer to other members rather than providing their own arguments, and then in so doing, tend to provide a lot of rhetoric with little or no references to back up their remarks. In the meantime, alexandra obviously has spent a great deal of time doing research to provide reliable information. alexandra--thank you for the information about credit--it is very interesting and good information--and please accept my apologies for not doing that research myself.

I didn't mind at all finding that information, 2CentsWorth - your message made me think of an additional line of inquiry; thank you for that. Mostly, what I mind is that people who argue against me are always pushing me to present evidence (rightfully so), but then don't apply these rules to themselves; this seems unfair to me.

 

[alexandra]

There is no need for you to find evidence that the life of people in former Soviet republics is likely worse now than before the fall. I will grant you that. If you are claiming a causal relationship between the liberalization of markets and this decline in quality of life, I would ask you to substantiate that. My guess is that the utter economic and moral bankruptcy that characterized the Soviet Union before its fall and the lingering effects in the form of recovery and widespread corruption have a lot more to do with it..

I will research this issue (again, this will take me a while). I do not disagree entirely with your final statement in the above quote, but I do believe there is nevertheless a causal relationship between the liberalization of markets and the decline in quality of life. I suspect that one argument that will be used against me if I try to argue for the causal relationship we are referring to is that it's 'early days' yet. But I'll do the research and we'll see... I just read a really interesting article in the 'China' thread of this forum, and this article explicitly discussed the Chinese government's fears about the social and political implications of instituting 'market reforms' that are bound to lead to massive unemployment. Economic 'reform' does seem to result in economic hardship for the ordinary people who become casualties (lose their jobs), but I will have to do some research about this specifically on the Russian Federation. But a point about widespread corruption - it is not a phenomenon confined to the economics and politics of the Russian Federation (but this is the subject of another thread, which I'm not game to start now).

The important question to ask is why people miss out. I qualified by virtue of one fact and one fact alone: I did not have a sufficient savings or income to pay for college on my own. For that reason, and that reason alone, I am going to college for free. It was not difficult to qualify; I just had to not have any money.

Ok, then I have one question and one comment. My question is: 'Is this criterium of qualification applicable throughout the United States, or is it only valid in certain states'? My comment is: If this is the case throughout the United States, this demonstrates that the US has a 'welfare' system that a strictly capitalist system would not tolerate. I would, furthermore, argue that this alone should demonstrate to you that it is the 'socialist-like' aspects of the US system that are beneficial to the ordinary people. What would you have done if all education were privatised and there was no way of attending college if you didn't have the money for the fees/books/living expenses?

A community college is an option for people who either do not want to pay for a four-year university or cannot qualify for acceptance. One can take the first two years of instruction at a community college and then transfer to a university.

Thanks for this information - I never understood the difference between a community college and university. So I take it that the two years' instruction at college are fully equivalent to the first two years' study at university? (I realize this has nothing to do with our argument - I'm just curious).

Of course there are universities of different quality in the US, as there are everywhere. To use your own language, "Which universities do the wealthy go to?" Is not an answerable question. I would imagine there is some positive correlation between family income and the cost of attendance of the university being attended, but that is hardly going to tell you where anyone person goes to school. The more expensive universities are generally the best rated ones.

Yes, in every country I know about the universities are ranked - but generally, the people living in that country know which the 'prestige' universities are, and their fees are generally higher so that most of the students come from wealthier backgrounds.

It is important to note, however, that almost all of these universities, because of their wealth, are able to guarantee that 100% of financial need will be met for all students that qualify for admission. That means you basically pay what you are able to pay. In theory it is no more difficult financially for a poor person to attend than a rich person.

I must admit that I am totally surprised by this. So there are no quotas? As many people as qualify academically (I imagine there are 'entrance exams'?) can enrol in the prestige universities, even if they don't have the funds to do so? This is, indeed, a very fair system. But aren't there quotas? (Sorry, I'm finding it hard to believe this). I do, however, have another argument to add here: I would imagine that it would be more difficult for students from poorer backgrounds to qualify simply because their previous schooling experiences may not prepare them for meeting the admission requirements. But I don't know - I'm just 'thinking aloud'.

Working three jobs, likely minimum wage jobs, is not lazy; it is stupid.There are no admissions standards for community colleges or for vocational schools. Anyone can get in and, after that, it is a matter of applying your hard work skills to your schoolwork whether or not you will succeed there. A degree is no guarantee of wealth, but it will guarantee that one is able to obtain employment above minimum wage and is able to provide for oneself working only one job.

Hmm, I don't think it's fair of you to call people 'stupid'. I imagine most people would not *choose* to work three (or even two) jobs but are forced to do so because of wage levels? And really, loseyourname, some people's original educational experiences (I mean in elementary school and high school) do not prepare them for further study. I doubt that it is stupidity that holds back people's ability/desire to go to college and get qualifications to improve their employment prospects - perhaps some people just can't afford to take that much time off to study? I mean, when you study at a community college, are all your living expenses paid as well by the government? Are people who don't have any family support totally financially supported if they choose to study at college in the US? If so, again I'll have to admit that this is a very fair system and is not at all the sort of system I imagined operating in the US (at least as far as education is concerned).

 

[alexandra]

Perhaps we will have to agree to disagree then. I believe that what he is speaking of is something influenced by many variables. I think though that his description here is rather simplistic. It's much easier to describe vastly complex systems in abstract philosophic terms but for the ideas to be workable scientifically you need to express them in numbers, equations, and overall more concrete terms.

Yes, we'll have to disagree: Marxism is not a positivistic perspective. Evidence is provided to justify conclusions reached, but this evidence is not confined to statistics - although Marxism makes extensive use of economic data as well to explain the issues under investigation.

The 'poverty of development of human sensibilities' may be at stake but it's definition is also subjective and not really something you can pin down scientifically speaking. You have already seen the problems we have here discussing poverty in monetary concerns.

Science - and the scientific method, and the objectivity it depends on - is an immensely powerful tool. In the social sciences, it is good to aim for objectivity (or, at the very least, to aim for only presenting arguments which you can back up), but I do believe that it is not possible to be totally objective. Even pure science involves interpreting the data, and scientists disagree about how they interpret data sometimes. It makes sense that this would be true in the social sciences as well. What one must agree on is definitions of terms. If we were to argue about 'human sensibilities', and the extent to which different socio-economic systems meet them, we would have to agree on how we defined this term.

I think loseyourname has responded rather well to this already. And crap, I need to get going. I'll definitely pick this up tomorrow.

Ok. I'll respond if you have time/want to continue discussing this.

 

[loseyourname]

Ok, then I have one question and one comment. My question is: 'Is this criterium of qualification applicable throughout the United States, or is it only valid in certain states'?

Federal standards are the same everywhere. There is a cap, however, on how much money one can receive from the federal government. There are additional sources of state aid that are specific to California and I do not know how much other states can offer relative to that. When you are going to a state university, however, there is no tuition charge. The total expense here, including housing and living expenses, is budgeted around $17,000 for a full-time student, so it isn't that much. The more expensive private schools offer institutional aid, so it's a little different there. If you go to USC, for instance, they can guarantee you 100% of the aid you need, not from government sources, but from private sources. Ultimately, the line between socialism and capitalism is a little blurry here. Both systems can provide assistance, with the only distinction being whether the money is gathered voluntarily or not. My real objection to true Marxism is state ownership of the means of production, not with limited welfare programs and safety nets and educational assistance and such. Even the public primary education system is socialistic in this respect. No one pays to go to high school unless they go private.

What would you have done if all education were privatised and there was no way of attending college if you didn't have the money for the fees/books/living expenses?

Again, the private universities have other means of providing aid. They receive a good deal of money in the form of tuition from the students that can pay, private individual donations, and donations from private funds and institutes set up to fund education and research. If I couldn't have my full need met, then I would have had to work. I know enough people that have put themselves through college by working and it can be done. It only becomes practically impossible if you have a family, and let's face it - in that case, the person should have considered beforehand the consequences of starting a family before getting the education. Even then, I know people that have done it.

In the case of postgraduate education, oftentimes if you are employed and taking classes that are relevant to your line of work, your employer will pay your tuition, as it is to their benefit to have better educated workers. It's probably easier to pay your employees to get MBAs at a local institution that you trust than it is to train them entirely yourself.

Thanks for this information - I never understood the difference between a community college and university. So I take it that the two years' instruction at college are fully equivalent to the first two years' study at university? (I realize this has nothing to do with our argument - I'm just curious).

There has to be adequate correspondence between the coursework at a two-year school and the coursework at a four-year school for the latter to accept transfer credit from the former. It isn't usually much of a problem. In fact, when I attended Los Angeles City College, a community college, I found that the quality of the classes, and especially of the students, was often above that of most four-year schools. The reason, oddly enough, was actually all of those immigrants from former Soviet Republics that made up so much of the student body. They were dedicated and incredibly hardworking students, for the most part. They realized, having come from the background they did, the opportunity that they had in this country and weren't about to squander it.

I must admit that I am totally surprised by this. So there are no quotas? As many people as qualify academically (I imagine there are 'entrance exams'?) can enrol in the prestige universities, even if they don't have the funds to do so? This is, indeed, a very fair system. But aren't there quotas?

Well, no school accepts an infinite number of students, if that's what you mean. Admission is not based upon ability to pay, however; it's based upon academic qualification. Most will also take background into account and private universities are still allowed to give special preference to applicants from impoverished upbringings and to minorities. Public universities, from what I know, are no longer allowed to set explicit quotas on a minimum number of minority students they must accept, which they did in the past, but they give extra consideration to background circumstances.

I do, however, have another argument to add here: I would imagine that it would be more difficult for students from poorer backgrounds to qualify simply because their previous schooling experiences may not prepare them for meeting the admission requirements. But I don't know - I'm just 'thinking aloud'.

Ideally, the education standards at all public schools would be equal. In practice, however, it is true that some schools offer more honors and AP classes, better counseling, and some schools just have more motivated students and less distractions. As I said, universitities here do generally try to take that into account when considering applications. If a person grew up poor and went to a school where everyone performed poorly, that will be looked at. This is an institution by institution thing - there are no nationwide standards regarding how an application will be considered. For better information than I can give you, you might want to check out the web pages for admissions offices at US universities and colleges. Here are links to some of the better rated schools:

http://www.harvard.edu/admissions/

http://students.berkeley.edu/admissions/index.asp

http://www.princeton.edu/main/admission-aid/

http://www.virginia.edu/undergradadmission/index.html

These are widely considered the two best private and public universities in the United States.

Hmm, I don't think it's fair of you to call people 'stupid'. I imagine most people would not *choose* to work three (or even two) jobs but are forced to do so because of wage levels?

It's hard for me to buy that anyone is ever forced, at least for an extended period of time, to work multiple low-wage jobs. These are not the types of jobs that are designed to allow someone to fully provide for themselves with. There is always the option to go to a vocational school and learn a trade if you can do no better. And frankly, I do feel it is stupid to do otherwise. I can understand if circumstances dicate that you must do this to get by for a certain amount of time, but there is no excuse for continuuing to live one's life that way for any long period of time.

One of the primary things I would change about the US public education system is that I would offer the students the option of obtaining a vocational education earlier. Some people are just not academic people and there is really no reason for them to finish high school and little chance that they will ever succeed at a regular liberal arts college. We may as well provide these people with marketable job skills at a younger age, before they have children and are forced, as you say, to work multiple menial jobs. I suppose, ultimately, people can be forgiven a mistake or two, especially early in life, but that doesn't make the circumstances they put themselves into any less of their responsibility and that doesn't make them any less stupid. It might sound harsh of me to say that, but let us be honest with ourselves. I've done some stupid things myself. I've even been homeless for a time. Perhaps, but for the grace of God, I would be in an untenable situation myself with little hope for recovery. Nonetheless, it would have been my own stupid decisions that put me there and my responsibility to deal with them.

And really, loseyourname, some people's original educational experiences (I mean in elementary school and high school) do not prepare them for further study.

And some people just don't have the desire to learn anything of an academic or scholarly nature. People like us that read too much and discuss ideas would like to believe that we can solve problems by better educating people and providing more resources for an academic, scholarly learning environment. In reality, I honestly think that vocational education at a younger age is the best option for a lot of people. Skills are just as marketable as intellect.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

If we were to argue about 'human sensibilities', and the extent to which different socio-economic systems meet them, we would have to agree on how we defined this term.

And this is my point. We would have to agree on how to define this and what means are proper for measuring it. Just that in and of it self could take ages to agree on and on top of that just because we agree on it doesn't mean the masses agree with us.
It's a sin! Not Ludvig Van!
But it was for Alex's own good!
Sorry, I'm being a bit silly here.

 

[alexandra]

It's a sin! Not Ludvig Van!
But it was for Alex's own good!
Sorry, I'm being a bit silly here.

Silly is sometimes good (and necessary)... but you've lost me on the quote "It's a sin! Not Ludvig Van!". and yes, it was for my own good. I was being too polite by half! And I'm enjoying not feeling like I've got to be so polite any more

 

[alexandra]

And this is my point. We would have to agree on how to define this and what means are proper for measuring it. Just that in and of it self could take ages to agree on and on top of that just because we agree on it doesn't mean the masses agree with us.

Hmm, you make a good point - especially about how even if we agree, there will be no guarantee that people in general will agree with us. Nevertheless, I am tempted to start another thread about how to measure 'human sensibilities' - something that's come up in another discussion as well (as 'human development/wellbeing'). But no, I'm feeling too lazy to give this serious thought at the moment, so the new thread will have to wait until another day when I'm feeling more inspired.