News Economic Systems: Probing the Debate of Communism vs. Socialism

[Joel]

I don't know if this is self-evident or not, but doesn't in fact some economic theory predict that cartels will form in an unregulated market? By having anti-cartel laws the state can actually free the market by imposing regulations. So, it's another point of how complex this free market phenomenon is.

 

[alexandra]

The ideal capitalist world is actually one in which anarchy reigns, not totalitarianism. As such, there would be no possibility of controls or regulations on any market, because there would exist no governing body capable of implementing those.

Agreed - and I really think that is the sort of society towards which we are headed at the moment as everything gets privatised. I hope I'm wrong, but I don't think I am. Full privatisation of everything is going to be very tough to live with - for the vast bulk of the population, in any case. Prices will rise (energy prices in California skyrocketed), essential maintenance in essential service areas will be compromised (as again demonstrated by the Californian energy case), etc. Total market anarchy in all areas of life - not a nice prospect, but it seems to be happening.

Pure socialism, on the other hand, seems to require totalitarianism. A governing body must exist that regulates and controls every market. As such, there can be no democracy, as democracy always poses the possibility that the people will not want these regulations and controls.

This depends on what you define as 'socialism'. My definition of socialism is the antithesis of totalitarianism - it involves the people being in collective control of their lives. I don't know whether you read my posting with the extracts about the Russian soviets - that's the sort of governing body I think about when I think of socialism, and in my mind there can be nothing more democratic than that.

Democracy seems compatible, as you say, only with a world in which capitalism and socialism are mixed, although it won't always be according to what empirical research shows is best, unfortunately. It will be according to who holds the most political power. Depending on where and when, this might be a certain industry, soccer moms, corporations, unions, or any number of other special interest groups.

Hmm, I can't say I agree that democracy is compatible with capitalism. I'm pretty sure about what I believe on this point, ie. that capitalism and democracy are incompatible. The only sort of democracy I can ever see one achieving in a capitalist system is a very shallow sort - freedom of speech, freedom of worship - and even these 'freedoms' are constantly at risk because of the powerful money interests that control the mass media and other key social institutions. These are my views, in any case - I am aware that other people hold different views.

 

[alexandra]

Recent studies have found that genetic influence on intelligence varies depending on SES. The results show that the lower the SES (socio economic status) the more important environment became in overall intelligence.

Here's another article regarding the nature/nurture issue:

Socio-economic status (SES) has been shown to play an important part of development. One study indicated that children from a home with a low SES, upon being transferred to a home with high SES, improved their test scores as much as 16 points (Wahlsten, 1995). Another study shows that home environment also plays a significant role. This study, conducted by R.A. Hanson, indicated that Stanford-Binet IQ scores were greatly associated to many environmental factors that remain stable, in the home. These variables associated to intelligence in each age period are: ‘freedom to engage in verbal expression, language teaching, parental involvement, and provision of language development models’ (Hanson, 1975). Cognitive development appears to be stimulated by the development of language. Such home variables as quality of language models available to the child, opportunities for enlarging vocabulary through appropriate language usage, and opportunities for language practice were also found to be important factors showing a ‘.69 correlation between total ratings of the home environment and general intelligence’ (Hanson)... It can also be said that there is a definite correlation between the genetic component of Humans and their ability to develop intellectually. While this may not be as high a component as the SES of an individual, it plays a part, just the same. http://allpsych.com/journal/iq.html

 

[Art]

The data from the SES studies appears to me to correlate perfectly with the findings in the study I quoted above. (That hereditary influence increases from .20 to .80 with age) although the conclusions as to why intelligence can increase seem to differ.

 

[Joel]

I hope I won't interfere with your discussion, but I'd like to ask and comment a few things.

Agreed - and I really think that is the sort of society towards which we are headed at the moment as everything gets privatised. I hope I'm wrong, but I don't think I am. Full privatisation of everything is going to be very tough to live with - for the vast bulk of the population, in any case. Prices will rise (energy prices in California skyrocketed), essential maintenance in essential service areas will be compromised (as again demonstrated by the Californian energy case), etc. Total market anarchy in all areas of life - not a nice prospect, but it seems to be happening.

Really, everything? I mean, for example the OECD is recommending more attendance to public health care in America, in other words, probably a bigger public sector. And OECD is an organization, which's purpose is to further democracy and market economy. In finland the agency of free competition busted major companies in the paper industry for forming cartels. The Oil market (as I think was pointed out somewhere) is far from free, in the sense that OPEC countries are agreeing on prices in a very cartel-like fashion. So, while I don't know the reasons for the Oil price increase, it may very well be for other reasons than a free competition.

This depends on what you define as 'socialism'. My definition of socialism is the antithesis of totalitarianism - it involves the people being in collective control of their lives. I don't know whether you read my posting with the extracts about the Russian soviets - that's the sort of governing body I think about when I think of socialism, and in my mind there can be nothing more democratic than that.

But when you say, "the people being in collective control" it is still one institution, one interest, one 'collective people' that is in power, isn't it? Generally I understand there are many problems with direct democracy, one being that it is in precise very hard to have everyone vote on most things and that a majority opinion is seldom the best for the majority. Hence the representative democratic systems we have, where the practical problems are overcome and the professional politicans (and especially the ministries that are doing the bulk of the work) can devote all their time to put together various proposals. After all, I find that most political descissions go past me simply because I lack the time to study them properly.

Hmm, I can't say I agree that democracy is compatible with capitalism. I'm pretty sure about what I believe on this point, ie. that capitalism and democracy are incompatible. The only sort of democracy I can ever see one achieving in a capitalist system is a very shallow sort - freedom of speech, freedom of worship - and even these 'freedoms' are constantly at risk because of the powerful money interests that control the mass media and other key social institutions. These are my views, in any case - I am aware that other people hold different views.

I will have to disagree with capitalism and democracy being incompatible. I'd say that democracy is heavily dependant on a market economy and individual property rights.

Consider Emil Durkheim's theory of division of labour; I understand he says that because of the ever increasing division of labour, people in a modern society (in begginning of the 20th century!) will need (and want) more than they can produce alone. This interdependence will also lead to an increased solidarity between people (because they will have to trust that the next person does his part) and thus to a 'collective conscience' of what is good for the society. Another word for collective 'collective conscience' would perhaps be 'a norm', an understanding of what is undesired (often criminalized, unethical and/or unfunctional) behavior that will be damaging for most people.

Democratic states, on their part, are dependant on legitimatization from the people; they must enforce policy that is acceptable to so many people that they don't loose their legitimacy and get overthrown by a revolution. In other words, there must exist norms or a collective conscience about what is the right course of action. So, by deduction, we can conclude that the division of labour (that I will now assume is utilized and fostered by a competitive market economy) will lead to the emergence of a 'collective conscience', which, in turn, is an essential part of a democratic society.

 

[alexandra]

The problem with posting this was the result of not researching the information. Karl Marx Stated that one day Capitalism and Communism would join together. Just as other political sysstems in the past have done.

I have done a lot of research on Marxism (for many years) - Marx said that if the working class completed its historic class 'mission' (and there is no gaurantee that it will), it would overthrow capitalism and the capitalist system would be replaced by socialism which would, at a later stage, be replaced by communism. According to Marx, just as capitalism replaced feudalism, socialism would replace capitalism. There was no prediction that capitalism and communism would combine in Marx's theory.

If you research the new world order on the web, you will find that communism was inventied by the Illuminati. May 1st may day is in fact the day the the Illuminati came into effect in 1776. (I know that I'm spelling Illuminati wrong, but bear with me.)

I don't know anything about the Illuminati and I have never read, in any book about Marx, any connection between his theory and this group. If the Illuminati did invent communism, this would not have been the version of communism that Marx was discussing. His theories were based on empirical studies of political and economic systems, and were informed by his extensive knowledge of German philosophy and by the theories of early French socialists such as Henri Saint-Simon and Charles Fourier. But Marx's idea of socialism (and how it could be achieved) differed substantially from the ideas of the early French socialists, and he called his theory 'scientific socialism' to distinguish it from the 'utopian socialist' theories that preceded it.

If Leon Troskey was put in charge of the Soviet Union instead of Stalin everything would have been different. World War II wiould not have lasted so long, and true Communism would have been the norm after the war, instead of continued military build up. (Trotskey was head of the Military so he would have been prepared for the Nazi invasion and not have acted like a idiot like Stalin did.)

I totally agree with this. Trotsky was both a great military strategist and a true Bolshevik and revolutionary... as far as I'm concerned, he was the greatest politician that ever lived

As far as forcing people to work. Man may have a stronger will, but women have a stronger won't.

Hey, Big Papa, this *really* made me laugh; thanks!

You can not force people to work. If you do, the quality of work will be either inferor, or production will be slower. If you ganrentee someone a job, this is how it happens. If you force someone to produce high quality stuff at a fast rate, then inovation is slow.

Hmm, perhaps - I'm not sure what I think about this. Under capitalist production relations, workers are all the time forced to produce high quality stuff at a faster rate else they'll lose their jobs (especially nowadays, when 'productivity' and profits are put above everything else). I do, however, agree that people cannot be forced to work and produce their best. But I don't think this would happen in a socialist system - I think people would want to work because they would be able to work in fields they are interested in and because they would be properly educated/trained to perform their work well. Also, people would have a sense of community - and a sense of responsibility towards their communities - so they wouldn't want to let their fellow human beings down.

Now as far as having communism compared to capitalism, it's not that cut and dry. To improve a better economic system will take a hybred of non-violent anarchism, communism, facism, and capitalism.

The non-violent anarchism would be aloowing the workers to own the products they produce from raw matterial. The Communism would come in from the government providing food and putting prisoners to work on farms, factoires and creating housing for reduced sentences. Even producing artic gear allowing people to work and walk to work in the winter. The facism would come into have people to see it as a patrotic duty to work hard and long hours for low pay. The Capitalism would come in for peopel to start their own independent small business operations. Granted they would not own most of the profits, but that's not the point. The point is by having a series of operations run by the workers, then by taking a small profit from each while the rest goes into reinvestment and into the owrkers pockets, then they can increase their standard of living.

Oh, I don't know about this. I don't believe one can mix such very different systems - I think they'd be incompatible. But it is an interesting idea to contemplate...

 

[alexandra]

My Goodness! This does Seem to Be Quite the Thread,
1) I AGREE WHOLEHEARTEDLY WITH ALEXANDRA AND DOOGA.
2) SOCIALISM AND COMMUNISM ARE REALLY THE ONLY ACCEPTABLE ECONOMIC SYSTEMS BECAUSE THEY ARE ESSENTIALLY, THEORETICALLY BOTH EGALITARIAN AND HUMANE. Capitalism is neither of these two, and as such, unacceptable as a resource distribution system. Capitalism is pure barberism.
3) Relatively-speaking, capitalists are completely selfish, violent, unsocialized and will do anything and say anything to get anything and everything. IMO, the socialist is motivated completely differently and is EXACTLY what the world needs to achieve world peace, progress, equality and all good and progressive social goals.
4) I think Christ's message was essentially both socialist and communist. He just didn't have the names or knowledge to put that message in modern, secular terms.
5) IMO captitalism's like cancer. Yeah, you get all kinda breakneck development, but it's often at the expense of the environment, peoples, health and well-being as well as the public and social good.
5) I think capitalism brings out the worst in people. I want to only cooperate, hate the way competition is in our society. I don't want to be ripped off or exploited in the least, but only want to work, and all others to work too for the general public good. I think the world has tremendous possibilities if we do that and zero hope if we don't. I completely hate selfishness and wonder what in the world selfish people think they are so much more important or deserving for than everybody else - I think selfishness is a character flaw and a vice.

Power to the People,
NN

Well, NN, exactly! You have summarised all the main points I've been trying to make - I especially like the way you put this idea: "I think the world has tremendous possibilities if we do [achieve socialism] and zero hope if we don't" - yes. And I think time is running out for us to get it right...

 

[alexandra]

Given the fact that many people are that way, it might explain the relative success of it

vanesch, no, no, no... people are largely products of their environment. But you were winking - so I guess you were just trying to get a reaction

No, seriously, it's fun reading about communism, capitalism and such, as an intellectual exercise. However, what most of those "ideal" systems lack is experimental back-up. It's not because it sounds nice on paper that it also works out in reality, because human beings are complicated systems, and collections of human beings are even more complicated ; so any simplistic ideology will have overlooked some aspects. What needs to be done is building a society that can correct for observed unwanted dynamics and with some safety mechanisms against very stupid decisions. I don't think either distilled, pure capitalism nor communism provide such situations.

Yes, human beings are complicated systems - no doubt about that. And as you say, social organisations are even more complex. But capitalism is much more than just an ideology - it's a socio-economic system that we are living within today that is causing a lot of damage not only to human beings but also to the environment. Perhaps the experiment of socialism (if it could get a chance to run its course) would work; it's just never had that chance. Every time the powerful capitalists and their supporters were threatened by any form of socialism, they did their utmost to subvert and sabotage the socialist experiment - and they always succeeded. While the capitalist experiment has been allowed to run its course for about 300 years now (and look what a mess it's gotten us into), the socialist experiment has just never happened.

 

[alexandra]

The term "free market" doesn't imply some kind of gloriful freedom for which one should be ready to die, it is just a term which describes a mechanism in which one is free to decide, on both sides, to accept or to reject a proposed economic act: from the moment one allows individuals to make such a decision, automatically a free market is instored. If the term "free" bothers you as being unrightly abusing the positively sounding "free", call it the "lubricated market" for my part

I still don't like it - 'free' or 'lubricated', it has the same meaning for those who have only their labour-power to sell if they are to survive.

The only way to AVOID the appearance of a lubricated market is by enforcing economic acts upon people/agents. That's usually done by instoring laws "regulating" the market.
I think that it has been amply proved that the lubricated market is a system which makes good coffee machines and hand drilling machines. One cannot deny that it works well there.

Sure - but the other system (the deformed 'worker's state' that was the USSR) made excellent spaceships! (Just a little joke, vanesch). Capitalism has, I agree, resulted in many technological innovations. But it has reached a stage of development now where it is very destructive (more than it has been before; capitalism was always destructive, focusing as it does on profit and being motivated by greed). I wonder if you've heard of Ronald Wright's "A Short History of Progress"? Some information about it can be obtained at http://www.cbc.ca/ideas/massey/massey2004.html - interesting stuff:

In A Short History of Progress Ronald Wright argues that our modern predicament is as old as civilization, a 10,000-year experiment we have participated in but seldom controlled. Only by understanding the patterns of triumph and disaster that humanity has repeated around the world since the Stone Age, can we recognize the experiment’s inherent dangers, and, with luck and wisdom, shape its outcome.

From this analysis (and there are many like this), it seems urgent that we sort this stuff out.

Whether it should also be applied to the labor market is a matter of political taste. However, the price to pay is that one then denies the freedom to accept or reject the economic act in question to the agent in question.
So the "lubricated market" can be applied to any individual branch or not, and within boundaries of regulation or not. Capitalism simply says that it should be applied to all branches, without boundaries. Communism says that it should never be applied, and as such denies every individual freedom to an agent to accept or reject such an act.

There is more at stake than individual freedom, it seems to me. If capitalism is allowed to run its course, I believe there are good indicators that it will result in environmental disasters that will threaten the survival of life on earth. Oops, I sound crazy, don't I? I have never before been a believer in 'doom' and 'end-of-the-world' stories - I don't have any predisposition towards irrational, superstitious 'the end is nigh' myths... but more and more, I have been reading reputable reports about climate change, eg:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4616431.stm and http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4075986.stm (and many, many more). The situation looks exceedingly urgent. And I believe we cannot address this under a capitalist system of socio-political organisation.

 

[Les Sleeth]

vanesch, no, no, no... people are largely products of their environment.

Well, I say: No, no, no . . . people superficially observed APPEAR largely products of their environment, but contemplated in DEPTH are most substantially the product of their nature as consciousness. Because some people mostly look at behavior and physiology, they think that constitutes most of what a human being is. A human system based on superficial understanding of a human being isn't going to work long or ever well. IMO, Marx was an observer of behavior . . . his system reflects his broad but shallow understanding of human nature.

 

[GENIERE]

. . . his system reflects his broad but shallow understanding of human nature.

Amen! Time to end this vacuous thread or move it to a religious forum.

...

 

[vanesch]

Perhaps the experiment of socialism (if it could get a chance to run its course) would work; it's just never had that chance. Every time the powerful capitalists and their supporters were threatened by any form of socialism, they did their utmost to subvert and sabotage the socialist experiment - and they always succeeded.

I don't think there are many capitalist societies (I mean, if you get picky, and you say that the former USSR and China and so on were not "true communist" systems, then there has never been a true capitalist system either: there have always been regulations and taxes of some kind) - and I'm glad about that honestly. But if you take the western societies as "capitalist" which succeed systematically in sabotaging socialist experiments, then you will have to accept that this is an inherent instability of the socialist system: it is sufficient that there is a pocket of capitalist societies and they always succeed in making the socialist experiment fail.

While the capitalist experiment has been allowed to run its course for about 300 years now (and look what a mess it's gotten us into), the socialist experiment has just never happened.

I don't think that there has been any "capitalist experiment" any more than a communist experiment. And rightly so: I think that those idealised societies are absolute horrors. Give me a nice, complicated, dynamical society with some elements of democracy, power games, changing influences and lousy politicians instead !

 

[vanesch]

Sure - but the other system (the deformed 'worker's state' that was the USSR) made excellent spaceships! (Just a little joke, vanesch).

I agree with you ! I think that the free market works very well for consumer products and things with a short time scale. I think it works badly for large scale ambitious projects with long timescales and where expertise knowledge is more important than consumer opinions, like in building spaceships. That's why American personal computers are very good and former Russian photographic cameras were lousy and heavy, and why French trains are better than UK trains (very simplified vision :-).

 

[alexandra]

Amen! Time to end this vacuous thread or move it to a religious forum.

...

:zzz:...

 

[alexandra]

I hope I won't interfere with your discussion, but I'd like to ask and comment a few things.

All discussion is welcome, Joel

Really, everything? I mean, for example the OECD is recommending more attendance to public health care in America, in other words, probably a bigger public sector. And OECD is an organization, which's purpose is to further democracy and market economy.

I don't have as much faith as you do in the OECD, Joel - I don't believe it could get the US administration to do anything it says. I have tried to find information about its powers on the internet, but have had no luck so far. I would be really grateful if somebody could point me to some information about exactly what enforcement powers the OECD has – does it only make recommendations, or can it ‘punish’ member nations that do not follow its policies? Could it enforce any resolution? How? I mean, could it enforce sanctions or something on a member state? I would really like to know.

In finland the agency of free competition busted major companies in the paper industry for forming cartels.

I don’t know about this either. Did the OECD do this? How? Could it do the same in the US?

The Oil market (as I think was pointed out somewhere) is far from free, in the sense that OPEC countries are agreeing on prices in a very cartel-like fashion. So, while I don't know the reasons for the Oil price increase, it may very well be for other reasons than a free competition.

The OPEC cartel, it seems from the article I’ve quoted previously, will now be replaced by another cartel comprising the mega-oil corporations of Chevron, Exxon, BP and Shell. I don’t understand how this will be any better…

But when you say, "the people being in collective control" it is still one institution, one interest, one 'collective people' that is in power, isn't it? Generally I understand there are many problems with direct democracy, one being that it is in precise very hard to have everyone vote on most things and that a majority opinion is seldom the best for the majority. Hence the representative democratic systems we have, where the practical problems are overcome and the professional politicans (and especially the ministries that are doing the bulk of the work) can devote all their time to put together various proposals. After all, I find that most political descissions go past me simply because I lack the time to study them properly.

I believe that because of the available technology, it is now possible and practical to implement systems of direct democracy: we vote electronically. I totally disagree with the view that “a majority opinion is seldom the best for the majority” – this is an ideological difference we have, and we can’t settle it. You won’t convince me to believe this, and I won’t convince you to believe otherwise. I deeply believe in the ability of ordinary people to know what is best for them – especially if they are given the benefit of having an informed opinion and are not subjected to the propaganda they are currently subjected to in what pass as ‘news reports’. I don’t have any faith in professional politicians at all – not at this point in time, because they are trained to support the status quo and would not survive as politicians if they didn’t. I do have to concede that the lack of time to become well informed about issues may be a setback to real democracy; that would be a challenge one would have to address somehow.

I will have to disagree with capitalism and democracy being incompatible. I'd say that democracy is heavily dependant on a market economy and individual property rights.

Consider Emil Durkheim's theory of division of labour; I understand he says that because of the ever increasing division of labour, people in a modern society (in begginning of the 20th century!) will need (and want) more than they can produce alone. This interdependence will also lead to an increased solidarity between people (because they will have to trust that the next person does his part) and thus to a 'collective conscience' of what is good for the society. Another word for collective 'collective conscience' would perhaps be 'a norm', an understanding of what is undesired (often criminalized, unethical and/or unfunctional) behavior that will be damaging for most people.

But this in no way repudiates Marxist theory. Marx also discusses the division of labour. The fact that production relations become more and more interdependent was also discussed by Marx - and he came to the conclusion that one of the internal contradictions of capitalism that will make the system unworkable is that the increasing interdependence in the sphere of production is incompatible with private ownership of property (the social relations underlying capitalism).

Democratic states, on their part, are dependant on legitimatization from the people; they must enforce policy that is acceptable to so many people that they don't loose their legitimacy and get overthrown by a revolution. In other words, there must exist norms or a collective conscience about what is the right course of action. So, by deduction, we can conclude that the division of labour (that I will now assume is utilized and fostered by a competitive market economy) will lead to the emergence of a 'collective conscience', which, in turn, is an essential part of a democratic society.

Hmm, I don't want to open this thread to sabotage so I will speak in riddles on this issue: democracy no longer exists in the so-called 'democratic' countries. All those who are willing to look at the matter honestly can see that:
* firstly, the so-called 'democratic' countries are dominated by two major political parties which have no real policy differences (in the US, the Democrats and Republicans do not differ on any substantial issues; in the UK, 'New" Labour is virtually indistinguishable from the Tories; in Australia the Labor Party and the Liberal Party have identical agendas);
* secondly, it is common knowledge that at least one major election was rigged - 'stolen' is the word commonly used.
I do not believe that politicians worry about legitimacy any more; they feel (and seem to be) immune from punishment, whatever they do.

 

[alexandra]

I agree with you ! I think that the free market works very well for consumer products and things with a short time scale. I think it works badly for large scale ambitious projects with long timescales and where expertise knowledge is more important than consumer opinions, like in building spaceships. That's why American personal computers are very good and former Russian photographic cameras were lousy and heavy, and why French trains are better than UK trains (very simplified vision :-).

It's good that we agree about some things, vanesch. Now I didn't know about the French and UK trains - uh-oh, I sense another spate of patriotic posts coming up defending UK trains (you're evil , vanesch, opening such a can of worms!)

 

[alexandra]

Well, I say: No, no, no . . .

I was just being playful, Les - it exhausts me to be so serious all the time, and I have a very strange sense of humour...

...people superficially observed APPEAR largely products of their environment, but contemplated in DEPTH are most substantially the product of their nature as consciousness.

Where is your irrefutable evidence of this, Les (I'm now being serious; no longer playful). The experts in this field have not decided that 'nature' wins. And, seriously, what does 'their nature as consciousness' mean? I really don't understand what you mean by that phrase.

Because some people mostly look at behavior and physiology, they think that constitutes most of what a human being is. A human system based on superficial understanding of a human being isn't going to work long or ever well. IMO, Marx was an observer of behavior . . . his system reflects his broad but shallow understanding of human nature.

That is your opinion, and you are entitled to it. My opinion is the opposite - in my opinion, Marx developed the analytical tools that, if used correctly, can provide the most profound understanding of capitalism. This was his life's work - an understanding of the capitalist system - it was never his intention to try to understand 'human nature'. He was not a psychologist, and did not claim to be. He was a social scientist who specialised in researching, understanding and explaining the political economy of capitalism (the 'big picture' view - not at the level of individuals).

 

[Art]

It's good that we agree about some things, vanesch. Now I didn't know about the French and UK trains - uh-oh, I sense another spate of patriotic posts coming up defending UK trains (you're evil , vanesch, opening such a can of worms!)

I doubt you will find any defenders of the British rail system least of all in Britain.

 

[vanesch]

I totally disagree with the view that “a majority opinion is seldom the best for the majority” – this is an ideological difference we have, and we can’t settle it. You won’t convince me to believe this, and I won’t convince you to believe otherwise. I deeply believe in the ability of ordinary people to know what is best for them – especially if they are given the benefit of having an informed opinion and are not subjected to the propaganda they are currently subjected to in what pass as ‘news reports’.

I have been stamped 'elitist' here, and I have to say that I fully agree with being stamped so. So I'm also of the opinion that it is a bad idea to ask "the people" about their "opinion" on highly technical and complicated subjects. I'm indirectly involved in education in the secondary system where I see a statistically correct subsample of "the people", and no, I don't want them, on average, to decide even on how to write my name ! As much as there are intelligent and bright adolescents, as much as there are true dumba** idiots that don't know how to make a logical reasoning containing more than 4 steps. That won't stop them of being good plumber aids or truck drivers, but I don't want them to decide about how our society should fit together. I don't mind them choosing WHO they want as their representative (after all, the main goal of democracy is to give the people the artificial feeling that they are in charge, which calms them down). I don't want them, however, to decide WHAT to do ! Because, even if they vote for a dumb representative, the dumb representative still has to make the decisions him/herself and take responsability for it. The crowd can make totally stupid decisions WITHOUT taking responsability for it.

I have seen public debates on the EU constitution here and it was terrifying. The one that impressed me most was on the first TV show where poor Chirac tried to defend the EU constitution to a "representative sample of 18-25 year olds". One of those representatives wanted to know if the EU constitution imposed member states to proceed to selective litter collection. If it wasn't the case, he'd vote "no", because he thought that having selective litter collection was important...

 

[Art]

I have been stamped 'elitist' here, and I have to say that I fully agree with being stamped so. So I'm also of the opinion that it is a bad idea to ask "the people" about their "opinion" on highly technical and complicated subjects. I'm indirectly involved in education in the secondary system where I see a statistically correct subsample of "the people", and no, I don't want them, on average, to decide even on how to write my name ! As much as there are intelligent and bright adolescents, as much as there are true dumba** idiots that don't know how to make a logical reasoning containing more than 4 steps. That won't stop them of being good plumber aids or truck drivers, but I don't want them to decide about how our society should fit together. I don't mind them choosing WHO they want as their representative (after all, the main goal of democracy is to give the people the artificial feeling that they are in charge, which calms them down). I don't want them, however, to decide WHAT to do ! Because, even if they vote for a dumb representative, the dumb representative still has to make the decisions him/herself and take responsability for it. The crowd can make totally stupid decisions WITHOUT taking responsability for it.

I have seen public debates on the EU constitution here and it was terrifying. The one that impressed me most was on the first TV show where poor Chirac tried to defend the EU constitution to a "representative sample of 18-25 year olds". One of those representatives wanted to know if the EU constitution imposed member states to proceed to selective litter collection. If it wasn't the case, he'd vote "no", because he thought that having selective litter collection was important...

Doesn't it follow from this line of reasoning that the general populace should definitely not be allowed to decide WHO as there are far more numerous and complex policy differences between candidates in a general election than in a single issue vote such as the EU constitution and so therefore a far greater degree of knowledge and analysis is required to determine the best candidate to make the best decisions regarding WHAT. It would therefore seem a natural consequence of your line of reasoning to insist that people should have to demonstrate their knowledge and analytical skills before being allowed to exercise a vote but then this would be open to abuse as parties gave intensive courses to people sympathetic to their cause.
Ultimately there is no ideal political structure but democracy including it's referenda is probably the best of a bad bunch of worse alternatives.

 

[vanesch]

It would therefore seem a natural consequence of your line of reasoning to insist that people should have to demonstrate their knowledge and analytical skills before being allowed to exercise a vote but then this would be open to abuse as parties gave intensive courses to people sympathetic to their cause.

I think it is the only correct way of holding referenda: ask a few technical questions about the subject of which there is an objective answer. I wouldn't mind parties giving intensive courses in which technically correct information is drilled into the heads of people initially sympathetic to their causes. If they are technically well-informed, they might make up their own mind!
For instance, one could compile a list of, say, 300 multiple choice questions concerning the subject, with clear technical answers, and randomly draw 10 of them for each voter (with electronic voting). You could then weight the vote with the fraction of correct answers to the questions.

In all OTHER decision processes, some of this procedure is followed. If you're ill, you go to the doctor's, don't you ? You don't ask in the local pub to vote for what treatment you should take. Why ? Because, in the past, the guy with the white coat DID have to answer technical questions before they gave him a certificate making him a doctor. When you have a legal problem, you go to see a lawyer for the same reasons.

But of course that is "elitist"...

Ultimately there is no ideal political structure but democracy including it's referenda is probably the best of a bad bunch of worse alternatives.

That's Churchill, wasn't it ? I think *representative* democracy isn't that bad. I think it is less of a problem of having a few idiots up there, taking responsability for their acts, publicly exposed, than an anonymous crowd who can decide in all impunity.

 

[vanesch]

Doesn't it follow from this line of reasoning that the general populace should definitely not be allowed to decide WHO as there are far more numerous and complex policy differences between candidates in a general election than in a single issue vote

The problem democratic representation solves is not that you have the most competent up there, but that you somehow have the feeling to be represented. It is this feeling which is unalienable if you want to have some legitimity for a government - it is the ultimate excuse for exercising power: hey, you CHOSE me! Before, there was another such ultimate excuse: hey, GOD chose me ! I'm King by divine right. But that doesn't work anymore.
This, plus the fact that when you have such a terrible idiot up there that it becomes clear for a majority of people that he's messing up, and that he gets voted out, are the two main factors which justify the democratic process. I can't really think of any other advantage. But it's important enough.

The downside is indeed, that you don't have the most competent up there. But I'd think that in a representative democracy, with an underlying technocratic bureaucracy, that problem can be alleviated. So just don't give too much power to the elected, and let the professionals under them do the real work. They can then take all their time to try to inform correctly the elected, which should then take more or less the not too bad decisions. Hey, you might even have some bright people in there, you never know !

 

[Art]

For instance, one could compile a list of, say, 300 multiple choice questions concerning the subject, with clear technical answers, and randomly draw 10 of them for each voter (with electronic voting). You could then weight the vote with the fraction of correct answers to the questions.

The problem remains nearly all issues have both moral and ideological dimensions and so it is not a matter of selecting a panel to find the single correct solution as there isn't one. A person of small knowledge may possesses higher morals or a (subjectively) better ideology than the person who knows all of the facts. One example which springs to mind where this would be relevant would be on a vote on capital punishment. A person may not know any of the facts relating to how successful the death penalty is on crime reduction or saving taxpayers money etc but would still feel vehemently that it is morally wrong. The same applies to the EU constitution; many people are proud of their national heritage and do not want to see it subsumed into a greater body irrelevant of whether or not they know the details of the treaty. A few years ago Ireland was heavily censored by the EU for it's national budget which Irish people saw as an infringement of their sovereignty which is why they then voted no to the Nice treaty a few months later. BTW Ireland's budget turned out to be correct which is why their economy continued to grow whilst most of europes went into recession.

 

[Les Sleeth]

The experts in this field have not decided that 'nature' wins. And, seriously, what does 'their nature as consciousness' mean? I really don't understand what you mean by that phrase

Well, they certainly haven’t concluded we are mostly conditioning either. If anything, the current materialist theory is that we are genetics and brain hard wiring (which is nature).

I think it’s strange that you don’t understand your consciousness has a nature. Do you have the opportunity to associate with children? They are born with the potential to laugh, play, feel, think, desire, be happy . . . we are not born blank, without any potentials; and we aren’t born without limitations either since we cannot become just anything. Further, there are ways a child needs to be carefully developed if it is going to be mentally healthy, and there are many things one can do to really mess up a child. All this clearly indicates we have a nature as consciousness. And that leads to what is wrong with your next point.

. . . in my opinion, Marx developed the analytical tools that, if used correctly, can provide the most profound understanding of capitalism. This was his life's work - an understanding of the capitalist system - it was never his intention to try to understand 'human nature'. He was not a psychologist, and did not claim to be. He was a social scientist who specialised in researching, understanding and explaining the political economy of capitalism (the 'big picture' view - not at the level of individuals).

I'm glad you acknowledged that. The fact that he jumped to social thinking without understanding human psychological needs is what's wrong with his theory. Who exactly do you think is going to work through his system? Do you design a system for horses that isn't based on horse ways? Our relatively recent understanding that human systems have to be grounded in basic needs of consciousness has been one of the major practical breakthroughs. Why do you think freedom was so motivating to the early Americans?

I don’t think we are going to agree on much Alexandra because you seem to be a “believer,” while I am skeptical of grand, unproven philosophies. A lot of things can be argued and apparently made sense of intellectually. But the true crucible for any idea is in its application. I see life as an experiential opportunity, like a big laboratory. I don’t listen much to believers unless they are doers first; so for me, if someone believes something is true, it is imperative they demonstrate it.

I don’t know if you are familiar with the philosophers Charles Peirce and William James, and their one truly original American philosophy: pragmatism. I have my own version of it which I sum up simply as “what works.” In this world doers are those who get things done. They create, they build, they discover . . . and the economic system which has supported all that more than any system in the history of humankind has been a free market system. Just in terms of what “works,” a free market system has at least something built into it that works.

Now, I agree with most of the criticisms of capitalistic economies (but really I mean free market system, so from now on I’ll call it FMS). But I could see a way to do a type of FMS which wasn’t driven by greed or lust for power, etc. Isn’t it the inner condition of the people working within the system that make a FMS what it is? If you take the same greedy, selfish, power-hungry attitudes working in a FMS, and put them to work in a communist system, do you think it’s going to fare much better?

I’ve been trying to suggest to you what “works” about a FMS, in spite of all its evils, is that individual freedom of effort is a top priority. Those in power (in any system) may try to suppress competition, but you can see just how much new players are getting into the FMS anyway, so no one is stopping new ideas yet. That “new idea” success opportunity is really important because it allows the self-actualizers to rise to the top. Maslow estimated only 1% of the population ever self actualize, so we really need that 1% to have a way to be more influential. In this sense I agree with Vanesch’s elitism about letting the masses be so influential they stifle humanity’s brightest. Sometimes I think there are those who just want to live a mediocre life, and so they do what they can to suppress excellence to keep from being shown up.

Getting back to the importance of “individual freedom of effort,” that’s the heart of a free market system. It’s like, “So you have a good idea? Well get out there and prove it works. Talk is cheap; do it and then you get credibility.” If you’ve read any of Carl Jung’s ideas you know about his emphasis on individuation. When I first read that it resonated fully with me.

Now, at pushing 60, I am more convinced than ever that individual development, expression, realization, achievement, and personal enjoyment make the human spirit blossom like nothing else. And if individuation makes us bloom, then systems which encourage that are going to do best. A lot of what goes on in capitalism is wrong, but the one thing it does right – the emphasis on individual striving – is so powerful it still makes capitalism “work” better than anything else we’ve seen.

Now let’s look at communism. I don’t buy all the complaints about not having had it demonstrated in the ideal, no system ever does. Where are the self actualizers stepping forward to make it happen? Where are all the dedicated researchers performing studies that demonstrate communistic principles really will work? WHERE ARE THE DOERS?

Why does most of the world yawn when anyone suggests communism? It’s boring, that’s why. It doesn’t excite our individuality, and that is exactly why whatever little bit of "real" communism that’s managed to arise in the state systems of China, Russia, et al has been bland. The basic understanding of what motivates a human being is wrong. And if you read Marx carefully, his analysis of what’s best for the masses clearly misses the importance of individual freedom of effort in terms of it being built into his system. It’s similar to the mistake welfare proponents have made by giving away help without requiring individual development on the part of recipients.

It would be great to have a FMS where we invested in what was good for humanity, and where we shared the proceeds sufficiently to make sure everyone had what they needed to live, be healthy, get educated (I’d love it) . . . But no system is going to make that happen. People have to learn one person at a time, and when enough of us are experiencing beneficent attitudes, then our systems, whatever we choose, will reflect that.

 

[vanesch]

The problem remains nearly all issues have both moral and ideological dimensions and so it is not a matter of selecting a panel to find the single correct solution as there isn't one. A person of small knowledge may possesses higher morals or a (subjectively) better ideology than the person who knows all of the facts.

Yes, but you could reasonably assume that in the worst case, the fact of possessing higher moral standards is statistically independent of knowing facts. You will have a hard time convincing me of a general ANTI-correlation. So as long as they are statistically independent or positively correlated (knowing facts and having moral standards about it), the proposed method doesn't make the results worse. Now if you are going to insist that the more you know about a subject, the less you have high moral standards about it, you are right of course. But if this proves to be a general criterium, then we can just INVERSE the weighting: the less you know about the subject, the more your vote counts...

One example which springs to mind where this would be relevant would be on a vote on capital punishment. A person may not know any of the facts relating to how successful the death penalty is on crime reduction or saving taxpayers money etc but would still feel vehemently that it is morally wrong.

Ok, but don't you think that KNOWING those facts can help you make your decision ? For instance I also think that the death penalty is morally somehow wrong. Nevertheless, if it is shown that it decreases the rate of child murders by, say 80%, I might be inclined to change my mind on it.

The same applies to the EU constitution; many people are proud of their national heritage and do not want to see it subsumed into a greater body irrelevant of whether or not they know the details of the treaty.

Don't you think that knowing exactly in what way that that is the case may be helpful ? For instance, you might wrongly think that certain aspects of your national heritage might be dissolved, while they are not, or vice versa.
I think that in general, knowing what you're deciding about always has a positive effect on the decision you take, one way or another.

However, I can see a bias introduced by what I propose: people can be so vehemently against what is proposed, that they don't even have to consider it. So the voting system diminishes their contribution, which would probably not change sides if they DID inform themselves.
But I'd say that if they want to make their point, then they just have to make an effort to look at what they despise so much, in order to do well on the test, and have their vote have a weight.

 

[Art]

Yes, but you could reasonably assume that in the worst case, the fact of possessing higher moral standards is statistically independent of knowing facts. You will have a hard time convincing me of a general ANTI-correlation. So as long as they are statistically independent or positively correlated (knowing facts and having moral standards about it), the proposed method doesn't make the results worse. Now if you are going to insist that the more you know about a subject, the less you have high moral standards about it, you are right of course. But if this proves to be a general criterium, then we can just INVERSE the weighting: the less you know about the subject, the more your vote counts...

By definition people who do not have the facts make their decisions intuitively relying on how they 'feel' about something rather than what they 'know' about it and so yes I think uninformed people would make judgements based more on their morals than well-informed ones who suppress their moral judgement by virtue of the 'facts' they have gleaned. This is afterall how many of the world's leaders, for example, have throughout history, justified immoral acts. As for weighting, that just invalidates the vote as you can get any result you like simply by adjusting the weighting factors.

Ok, but don't you think that KNOWING those facts can help you make your decision ? For instance I also think that the death penalty is morally somehow wrong. Nevertheless, if it is shown that it decreases the rate of child murders by, say 80%, I might be inclined to change my mind on it.

Don't you think that knowing exactly in what way that that is the case may be helpful ? For instance, you might wrongly think that certain aspects of your national heritage might be dissolved, while they are not, or vice versa.
I think that in general, knowing what you're deciding about always has a positive effect on the decision you take, one way or another.

I'm not saying one should avoid knowledge I simply question whether it should be a prerequisite to having one's opinion counted for the reasons I stated above.

However, I can see a bias introduced by what I propose: people can be so vehemently against what is proposed, that they don't even have to consider it. So the voting system diminishes their contribution, which would probably not change sides if they DID inform themselves.
But I'd say that if they want to make their point, then they just have to make an effort to look at what they despise so much, in order to do well on the test, and have their vote have a weight.

After WW2 there was a big push towards a technocrat society. I'm not familiar with the details but I saw footage of some of it's proponents (all dressed in a rather drab grey uniformlike apparel). Like you they believed in decisions being made by an informed elite but it died a death. I'll have to root around a bit to try and find out why.

 

[vanesch]

By definition people who do not have the facts make their decisions intuitively relying on how they 'feel' about something rather than what they 'know' about it and so yes I think uninformed people would make judgements based more on their morals than well-informed ones who suppress their moral judgement by virtue of the 'facts' they have gleaned.

Ah, like in the Hitchhiker's guide to the galaxy: the highest moral authority in the universe was a totally ignorant man, living in a cabin on a desert coast or something, being completely amnesic. Officials regularly came to ask him to take decisions, which he did, and then forgot about having done so

EDIT: how is this called ? Ignorocracy ? Amnesocracy ?

 

[vanesch]

After WW2 there was a big push towards a technocrat society. I'm not familiar with the details but I saw footage of some of it's proponents (all dressed in a rather drab grey uniformlike apparel). Like you they believed in decisions being made by an informed elite but it died a death.

Well, as I already said before, I think the functioning of the EU is not very far from this.

 

[Art]

Ah, like in the Hitchhiker's guide to the galaxy: the highest moral authority in the universe was a totally ignorant man, living in a cabin on a desert coast or something, being completely amnesic. Officials regularly came to ask him to take decisions, which he did, and then forgot about having done so

It's so difficult these days in a world of 6.5 billion people to have a truly original idea. Wish I'd been born back in the time of James Watt and the like, when all the low hanging fruit was still waiting to be plucked. But I bet someone has already said that

 

[vanesch]

Wish I'd been born back in the time of James Watt and the like, when all the low hanging fruit was still waiting to be plucked.

Look upon to it on the bright side: you'd be dead by now