Einstein - Why Socilaism

[Cain]

However, this is not really a capitalism-v/s-socialism debate; it is a “does socialism equal economic democracy” debate. And, as such, I will give it a go. I am certain that I will be educated by the experience. And, honestly, this Einstein was a socialist thread is silly and needs a good hijacking.

NOP- I just want to be clear that only real reason why I initially incorporated capitalism into my response was that you claimed it came closer to democracy.

I will relent that the “one dollar, one vote” concept seems weighted to the wealthy. However the point of the free market is that anyone can achieve the goal of having more dollars, more votes.

Okay, fine. Everyone can "increase their dollars," but it's all relative. The market still caters to those with more money, regardless. If you mean to say that anyone can become rich, I'll ony point out that not everyone can, and, income mobility does not compensate for income inequality.

At the onset, it is an equal playing field.

No it's not. There are natural and unnatural inequalities. Some people are born into wealth and privilege, and thus enjoy far greater opportunities than others. These advantages are unearned and undermine the idea of an "equal playing field." A free society determines one's outcome on the basis of choice rather than circumstances. I think capitalism, especially the laissez-faire type, rejects that premise.

Whereas, in a socialistic society there is no motivation to improve your number of votes; you are already equal by virtue of having been born. What motivation does an individual have to be productive when there is no chance to improve his position? I realize that this is an extremely basic question.

As I said there are many types of socialism. Michael Albert, for example, has a new book called Parecon: Life After Capitalism where he argues, quite persusaively, that remuneration ought to be based on effort (in capitalism it's based on productivity). A market socialist believes in fashioning firms as democratic institutions, so people may agree on any sort of payment scheme (there are still market mechanisms, but the owners decide).

I assume you are saying that since profit is the motivator behind business, the folks that are unable to afford the products that the business produce are of no concern to the to the business. I guess that is a fair statement. Compassion is the motivator behind helping individuals and money, not compassion is the drive of business. However, in a free market, charity is in the compassion business. If folks were not paying the high taxes of quasi-socialism/capitalism then charity would have a much better chance at success.

I've always found that to be a dubious claim, but it doesn't really matter (during the stock market euphoria, for example, charitable giving declined).

First off, oy, Noam Chomsky? The gentleman, by his own admission, does not have answers, just questions. I wish I could make a living asking questions. Perhaps I should claim that my questions are as good as Noam Chomsky’s and suggest that he should share his income with me. Do you think he would go for that?

I only quoted Chomsky to recount the idea that those who work in steel mills ought to own them. He doesn't play any greater role in my argument, so I'm not sure what your'e doing here.

Why? Was it the intellectual property of the those workers that started this mill? Did their work lend to the generation of capitol that purchased the property or the equipment for the mill?

To the first question: people ought to own the mill to have control over the lives. Socialists believe in this idea called self-management. Instead of taking orders from an arbitrary authority, everyone fashions the institutions where the labor to their own ideals (and, as I said, there are at least several different versions of socialism, just as there are variants of capitalism).

The secnod part of the above paragraph assumes some kind of coherent doctrine of property rights, which I denied below.

Capitalism is founded, I think, on roughly two premises:

1) Certain individuals own the external world.

2) Free-trade- individuals can trade their property as they please in markets.

I can dispute both, but I'm only really taking issue with the first one here: how do people come to legitimately own a tract of land? That's an important question because the second premise requires a compelling explanation. You address it below

The origins of property are: I killed this goat, I will eat it. I planted and grew this fruit tree with my labor, if you want some of my apples, you must give me some of the oranges that you labored to produce. I got to this cave first, I will keep it.

Finders-keepers? I think it's better to imagine that we get ship-wrecked on an island because it does away with a lot of the needless complications in economics and philosophy. So do some people just run out for a land grab and start claiming things? "I own that, and that, and that, and that; I own this coconut tree because I climbed to the top first; I own this cave because I wrote my name on the wall."

If we do wish to bring in historical complications, how do you account for Europeans colonizing the Americas? They were discovered originally by the Indians, and forcibly pushed off the land. Are we to return it to the Indians now? If no, why?

Wrong, everyone is a capitalist selling their product or ability to their internal or external customer.

I suppose you can use any definition of capitalist you please. I don't think that particular definition is useful (or historically accurate), but fine.

Fascinating, I have never heard anyone suggest that others should not ask questions in a free market. I doubt I have given a “plausible explanation” that you will accept. Also, it does appear that I have argued capitalism v/s socialism. Oops. [/B]

The first part is wrong: I was discussing property ownership, not the free-market (people need to legitimately possess things in order to trade them).
_______________________________________

Victor writes:

Well, that's simply irrelevant. meat-producing agriculture and all, we still waste trememdnous amounts of crops. What makes you think that more of the excess crops would reach the needy if we had more to spare?

We discussed this at length in the other thread. I'm only pointing out that market mechanisms result in wastefulness and inefficiency. The market BOTH feeds grain to animals, and with-holds food from the poor. Each part is dictated by the market, and the negation of the former does not necessarily translate into food for the poor.

Yup. And this is why we have tax/transfer infrastructure, publically funded research, and welfare state -- we are mitigating the problems of pure capitalism with regulations and social control. It's a much more economically efficient solution than straight socialism.

On the first part, I agree. Welfare state liberals can offer far more compelling arguments than the laissez-faire/libertarian crowd, if only because they recognize some instances of market failure. Nonetheless, welfare liberals discount the idea of self-management and the myth of property. As for "efficient solutions", I think that goes to my point about food production (and distribution) and medical research. There are other problems, but instead of writing a laundry list against capitalism, I'll just defend socialism. I do not understand the last two words in your above paragraph -- "straight socialism".

Well, the simple and true explanation is that ultimately, property was simply a claim of power -- ability to control and defend something. that does not, however, mean that we would be better off if we set out to rectify those "past wrongs" by expropriating property and redistributing it fairly. Zimbabwe is in dire straights now because they tried just that.

Property still requires an explanation. Or are you saying, "Yes, it's all arbitrary, but from this point forward, let's defend property relations."

Since I recently wrote a paper dealing with these issues, I'll quote a relevant point from Herbert Spencer:

“…Time,” say some, ‘is a great legaliser. Immemorial possession
must be taken to constitute a legitimate claim. That which has
been held from age to age as private property, and has been
ought and sold as such, must now be considered as irrevocably
belonging to individuals.” To which proposition a willing assent
shall be given when its propounders can assign it a definite
meaning. To do this, however, they must find satisfactory answers to such questions as -- How long does it take for what was originally a wrong to grow into a right? At what rate per annum do invalid claims become valid? If a title gets perfect in a thousand years, how much more than perfect will it be in two thousand years? -- and so forth. For the solution of which they will require a new calculus.

Spencer has some of the best arguments against land ownership in his original edition of Social Statics.

Ultimately, a measure of economic inequality is justifiable on grounds of economic efficiency; we the society should control how much inequality we have, though.

It depends how you want to define socialism. If we take socialism to mean "perfect equality," then okay. But not all sociailists believe everyone should have the same income (indeed, my original definition only requires that the workers own and control the means of production). In Mondragon cooperatives in Spain, for example, some people make as much as six times as others. It's still better than CEOs making 500 times their workers, especially since cooperative strive toward equality, self-management, solidarity and all those other good values.

 

[subgenius]

Greeting, subgenius.

Certainly, as is everyone’s…to a point. However, this seems to me like asking Stephen Hawking his opinion on baseball. He may have some witty and insightful things to say about it, but I am not going to draft his suggested players or place my bets (if I made them) on his suggestions. Hmm…now I am picturing Stephen Hawking as a commentator…


I have seen you make that comment before (I think) and was wondering your rationale for it. I believe that Capitalism, via the free market, is more akin to a democracy. Whereas, I have the right to vote via my income that I get to keep on the products or services that I enjoy and wish to support. Perhaps you are equating the equality of democracy with the (theoretical) equality of socialism? I apologize if you have made this argument in the past, and if you have please point me to the thread.


Oh, by the way, I have a Bob worshiper at my place of employment. She has a little red subgenius card printed out and tacked to her wall. Odd thing is…I think she is serious…

Re: opinions, would suspect the people like Hawking, et al defer having one unless they have an adequate basis.
Think jungle vs. civilization.
She is serious. Act like a dumbshit and they'll treat you as an equal. You have to laugh at the fact that noting is funny anymore.
Is she going to 6X Day? (6th Anniversary of the end of the world)
Its at the Brushwood Center in Sherman, NY.
Did you tell her about me? Send me nude pics of her.

 

[Victor Danilchenko]

Cain,

We discussed this at length in the other thread. I'm only pointing out that market mechanisms result in wastefulness and inefficiency. The market BOTH feeds grain to animals, and with-holds food from the poor. Each part is dictated by the market, and the negation of the former does not necessarily translate into food for the poor.

True. The plight of third-world poverty is also largely due to the political pressures from teh first-world, I know; but who said that socialism would be a better answer than democratic control of capitalism?1.

On the first part, I agree. Welfare state liberals can offer far more compelling arguments than the laissez-faire/libertarian crowd, if only because they recognize some instances of market failure. Nonetheless, welfare liberals discount the idea of self-management

No, we don't. We discount the idea that self-management can be implemented universally, and stay that way naturally.

and the myth of property

not at all. I fully recognize that property is highly problemmatic if you go back to the source; but that doesn't change the fact that private property is economically advantageous to the entire society.

I do not understand the last two words in your above paragraph -- "straight socialism".

I was saying that capitalism/socialism mix -- capitalistic welfare state -- is better than pure socialism. it's also better than pure capitalism, BTW.

Property still requires an explanation. Or are you saying, "Yes, it's all arbitrary, but from this point forward, let's defend property relations."

No, I am saying "yes, it's partially arbitrary, but let's preserve the regulated validity of private property on economic efficiency grounds". I am making a purely pragmatic argument.

Spencer has some of the best arguments against land ownership in his original edition of Social Statics.

Your quote makes it sound like he is attacking "natural rights" defenders of property, of which I am emphatically not one, nor most liberals I know of.

In Mondragon cooperatives in Spain, for example, some people make as much as six times as others. It's still better than CEOs making 500 times their workers, especially since cooperative strive toward equality, self-management, solidarity and all those other good values.

that's great; and I love such setups (honestly). However, I don't see them being viable in a capacity any greater than occasional instances in the sea of private property. prove to me that it's viable for such market socialism to exist, and I will be fully behind you on it. My defense of capitalism is, again, purely pragmatic.

 

[NoZed Avenger]

Socialism - why Einstein?

 

[Cain]

Victor-

We discount the idea that self-management can be implemented universally, and stay that way naturally.

Examples? (I hope these don't deal with sports teams, orchestras or things of that sort).

What do you mean by "naturally"? I despise that word in these contexts.

not at all. I fully recognize that property is highly problemmatic if you go back to the source; but that doesn't change the fact that private property is economically advantageous to the entire society.

and...

No, I am saying "yes, it's partially arbitrary, but let's preserve the regulated validity of private property on economic efficiency grounds". I am making a purely pragmatic argument.

I do not view that as a very good argument, especially considering how claims of property are so morally dubious. Not long ago (and even today), people argue that government needs to be run by coterie of elites for reasons of efficiency. Socialism gives power and control to people over their own lives. It's based on the fundamental idea that we ought to fashion the institutions that affect our lives. Why should such-and-such decide environmental legislation, or dictate when I can go to the bathroom?

When a person inherits a property, he cannot say, "Yes, I can run this as an authoritarian institution for reasons of efficiency."

I was saying that capitalism/socialism mix -- capitalistic welfare state -- is better than pure socialism. it's also better than pure capitalism, BTW.

See, I disagree with terms used in that way. I think people are mistaken when viewing the welfare state as a combination of capitalism and socialism. How under the welfare state do people own and control the means of production? Instead it's a redistribution scheme by government to mitigate market failures arising from externalities, provide public goods, and create a minimum standard of living. It's missing worker control; democracy.

As for your final paragraph and market socialism, I'm not really familiar with most of the writings. David Schweickart's book is recommended. http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/t...102-1170008-6488958?v=glance&s=books&n=507846

The problem with Mondragon type cooperatives and other socialistic schemes is there existence along side capitalism vis-à-vis the free-rider problem. A society educates a person, she immigrates to a capitalist country and then personally profits from social investment.

 

[Victor Danilchenko]

Cain

Examples? (I hope these don't deal with sports teams, orchestras or things of that sort).

The countless communes that had been tried, most of which haven't survived?.. 19th century was full of those.

Ultimately, your view suffers from the same flaw as libertarianism: it may sound good in theory, but there's no proof in the pudding.

What do you mean by "naturally"? I despise that word in these contexts.

I mean that cooperative ventures tend to not be sustainable economically and politically. Too often they get torn apart from within, and too often they get out-competed by the private enterprises. Yes, there are some successes -- but not nearly as many as would be needed to get the sort of "economic democracy" you are speaking about.

I do not view that as a very good argument, especially considering how claims of property are so morally dubious.

Any moral statement is morally dubious, due to the very nature of ethics.

Not long ago (and even today), people argue that government needs to be run by coterie of elites for reasons of efficiency. Socialism gives power and control to people over their own lives.

Arguably so; but at what cost?

It's based on the fundamental idea that we ought to fashion the institutions that affect our lives.

We do -- through government regulations and welfare state.

When a person inherits a property, he cannot say, "Yes, I can run this as an authoritarian institution for reasons of efficiency."

hence estate tax (which I think should be much higher than it is now).

See, I disagree with terms used in that way. I think people are mistaken when viewing the welfare state as a combination of capitalism and socialism. How under the welfare state do people own and control the means of production?

they control them through government regulation; and ownership is a form of control. What are OSHA rules but people controlling the means of production, hmmm?

Instead it's a redistribution scheme by government to mitigate market failures arising from externalities, provide public goods, and create a minimum standard of living. It's missing worker control; democracy.

That is worker control. there is no "instead" here.

The problem with Mondragon type cooperatives and other socialistic schemes is there existence along side capitalism vis-à-vis the free-rider problem. A society educates a person, she immigrates to a capitalist country and then personally profits from social investment.

Capitalist societies still educate their populace, without suffering the adverse effect. What you are really saying is that there would be an incentive for someone to emigrate -- that a capitalist society would provide, say, higher standard of living than the socialist one. That may be true, but that's exactly my point...

 

[corplinx]

Feel free to patronise me if it helps but ...yes, I do read the trade rags, I'm in the trade. Have I been imagining all the bits about Microsoft being regulated and disciplined for anti-competitive actions?

Apparently yes. They were slapped on the wrist for bundling Internet Explorer. In the next versions of windows, it will become impossible to remove IE from the OS. How's that for progress and regulation?

All of which doesn't affect Linux in the least. Konqueror is a fully functional web browser for KDE on Linux and even Apple is using it as the basis for their new web browser Safari. Mozilla/Netscape may eventually die off through no help from microsoft but because of upstart faster competitors.

Currently, Mozilla for Windows is the only alternative browser to IE that blocks popup windows.

I still find the whole anti-trust trial a farce. In retrospect, could you imagine purchasing web browsing software today? Microsoft bundling the browser is a natural evolution and Sun and Netscape wasted tons of money trying to fight progress. Netscape wanted you to pay for the one app that you will use most when you buy a computer.

 

[Cain]

Currently, Mozilla for Windows is the only alternative browser to IE that blocks popup windows.

WRONG. Opera, the greatest web browser ever created, blocks pop-up ads (and opens requested pop-up ads). It has a buttload of other features that makes your Internet experience 10 million times better than stupid IE (mouse gestures, tabs, getting rid of offensive tool bars).

I suggest that all sane people everywhere download it immediately: www.opera.com/

------------------------------------------------------------------

Victor-

I mean that cooperative ventures tend to not be sustainable economically and politically. Too often they get torn apart from within, and too often they get out-competed by the private enterprises. Yes, there are some successes -- but not nearly as many as would be needed to get the sort of "economic democracy" you are speaking about.

As I said earlier, it's extremely difficult for socialism to function within capitalism, but I still don't see how the failure of the cooperatives mentioned obviates worker democracy. The Spanish anarchists from the thirties presented a viable alternative.

Any moral statement is morally dubious, due to the very nature of ethics.

That's a cop-out. If we're discussing murder, say, can someone just glibly dismiss all philosophical discussion on the topic as morally dubious because, alas, that is the nature of ethics? I think not. Legitimate property ownership is a serious problem for capitalism. What if I choose one day to seize everything you own to put it to better use? I throw you out on the street. Do you just mumble while limping away, "Well, he just took everything I had, and such actions of violence and aggression are probably immoral,but, as any person knows, ethics is surrounded by doubt."

Not long ago (and even today), people argue that government needs to be run by coterie of elites for reasons of efficiency. Socialism gives power and control to people over their own lives.

Arguably so; but at what cost?

See, I think any dispute on this point shifts the discussion from capitalism versus socialism to guardianship (minority control) versus democracy.

What kind of decision making process do we want?

On this idea of fashioning institutions within our own vision, Victor writes:

We do -- through government regulations and welfarestate.

No, I disagree. The welfare state, regulations and government actions are not genuinely democratic. We do not have the sort of direct control required by a values of self-mangement.

Going back to the argument from efficiency, one may ask, " efficiency at what costs?

Do we allow Hannibal Lector to roam about because he's such an efficient creator of wealth?

We also cannot forget that governments are extremely violent institutions, even the welfare-state. You want to talk about the failures of communes, fine. But let's remember that governments commit atrocities on a level beyond comparison. Centralized states jockeying for power on the world stage results in unjustified aggression and countless deaths. The expansion of markets often requires the expansion of military power, and a brutal foreign policy.

When a person inherits a property, he cannot say, "Yes, I can run this as an authoritarian institution for reasons of efficiency."

hence estate tax (which I think should be much higher than it is now).

The inheritance part is non-essential. Suppose instead that a person is a fantastically successful rock musician. Nearing retirement this person decides to open up a business (it doesn't really matter what kind): the main point is that he or she has dictatorial control by virtue of their ownership. They have final say on all matters because they happen to own productive resources. It's difficult to explain why this is morally arbitrary because the seed money for this enterprise is derived from morally unjustified system.

The Welfare capitalism described is not worker control. No one has a say in their day to day lives. They're not directly involved in the decision making process of the firm. Power is turned over to bureaucrats who decide what's in the best interests of others.

Capitalist societies still educate their populace, without suffering the adverse effect. What you are really saying is that there would be an incentive for someone to emigrate -- that a capitalist society would provide, say, higher standard of living than the socialist one. That may be true, but that's exactly my point...

There's still a free-rider. The capitalist society is benefiting from the social investment of another country.

 

[Segnosaur]

We don't have a free-market here, which is why we have some choice. In a true free market all power quickly becomes consolidated and choices are quickly weeded out through competition to were everything becomes a monopoly. This is what was happening in early America, which is why we moved away from a free-market, becuase it was destructive and anti-democratic.

Technically, the 'classic' view of 'free market' is that there are an infinite supply of producers and consumers. That way, no single individual or manufacturer would be able to control prices and/or take over rivals.

You are right, we don't have a free-market in the exact sense because we don't have the possibility of an infinite number of producers. So, the government does its best... It simulates the free market by setting up rules to prevent abuse of monopoly.

 

[Malachi151]

Technically, the 'classic' view of 'free market' is that there are an infinite supply of producers and consumers. That way, no single individual or manufacturer would be able to control prices and/or take over rivals.

You are right, we don't have a free-market in the exact sense because we don't have the possibility of an infinite number of producers. So, the government does its best... It simulates the free market by setting up rules to prevent abuse of monopoly.

Well agreed, but since infinate anything is a rediculous assumption to make why are so many people today trying to tout the free-market, when its obvious that we don't have infinate, producers, consumers, or resouerces.

See, that is what all these "libertarians", who think they are so clever, come back to. "Ohwell, back when the US was created, blah, blah, blah." Yeah, back when the US was created it was a huge vast wilderness and white people were allowed to kill natives and take whever they wanted, and we has about 15% of the population in slavery.

So yeah, econmics worked a little different then. We can't just go out and steal things and enslave people anymore.

Sure, no income tax and free-market vlaues worked great when all you had to do was hop off the boat, hitch a ride west and stake a claim to free land. If it were that "easy" today then we could all still do that, but it isn't. Sure it was hard work at that time to do those things but it required no capitial.

"Conservatives" today talk down about any form of "give away" program, but let's see. America was just one giant give away program! Thats HOW Americans got rich, they got something for free. They came here, killed people, and took their posessions.

Land give aways were a huge part of early American development, that land sometimes came with oil or gold or diamonds on it, and when it did those people got rich. Some of those families are still in the top 1% of American families today. Why? Because their great, great, grandpa got lucky and had gold on his free lot.

Peopl had free access to timber, they just cut it and sold. You can't do that today, now you have to own the land or buy rights, and thats not cheap, I can't just go do that.

Teh capitla required to aquire success in the early days of America was far less than it is today. THATS THE ISSUE!

Thats why the "free-market" no longer works. That's why we have to tax the rich more then the poor. People are no longer capable of being self sufficient because we have developed an economy that creates dependancy through division of labor.

Thats all fine and good. Division of labor increses effency, but it also increases dependancy too. Just like a single cell animal is not dependant on others but in a multi-cell animal every cell is dependant on the whole.

America 500 years ago was a collection of single celled and small multi-celled organisms and out of that mutli-celled organisms became more productive naturally and now its one giant multi-celled organism. The brain cells are as depndant on the liver cells as the liver cells are on the skin cells, etc. Its all connected and interdependant now, HENCE the term SOCIALISM, which signifies the social dependancy created by society.

Now, just like an animal, if one group of cells tried to keep all the energy and nutrients to itself, say the brain, the rest would die and the brain would then die. Resources have to be shared, there is no choice. The cells within a body cannot be in competition with each other and also work together towards survival. When that happens we call it cancer, when one group of cells tries to do its own thing and benefit itself, and it causes death.

Same here. We are at a point where we have to cooperate and share resources, we can't continue to be "me, me, me", any more then cells in our body can try to hog everything for themselves.

As Einstein said, the days of independance are over, like it or not. If we do not recognize our social duties then we crete an unhealthy society, which will not be as successful as a society of peple who works together in cooperation instead of competition.

 

[Cain]

Technically, the 'classic' view of 'free market' is that there are an infinite supply of producers and consumers. That way, no single individual or manufacturer would be able to control prices and/or take over rivals.

Yes, that's one of several assumptions:

The free-market is supposed to consist of many, many producers, so many, in fact, that they are price-takers and not price makers.

Full information: everyone knows everything about everything.

No barriers to entry/free exit: Any firm can enter (or leave) any industry at any time. (There are legal barriers (patents), resource barriers (think De Beers), and typical financial barriers).

Perfect Rationality: all agents are perfectly rational (i.e. self-interested).

Homogenous/identical products: All firms produce the same products.

Of course, none of these assumptions hold in the real-world.

Well agreed, but since infinate anything is a rediculous assumption to make why are so many people today trying to tout the free-market, when its obvious that we don't have infinate, producers, consumers, or resouerces.

The scarcity of resources is another assumption on the part of free-marketers (and does hold in the real-world).

 

[Malachi151]

The scarcity of resources is another assumption on the part of free-marketers (and does hold in the real-world).

Yeah, you are correct on that. I was thinking about this item: No barriers to entry/free exit

In early America entry and exit of markets was easy, you just went and grabbed some land and started using it.

The free-market is supposed to consist of many, many producers, so many, in fact, that they are price-takers and not price makers.

Full information: everyone knows everything about everything.

No barriers to entry/free exit: Any firm can enter (or leave) any industry at any time. (There are legal barriers (patents), resource barriers (think De Beers), and typical financial barriers).

Perfect Rationality: all agents are perfectly rational (i.e. self-interested).

Homogenous/identical products: All firms produce the same products.

Of course, none of these assumptions hold in the real-world.

The one that gets me the most is:

Full information: everyone knows everything about everything.


This one gets me every time I hear people say "vote with your dollars".

And its also combined with: Perfect Rationality

Free-Market Capitalism assumes that everyone knows everything about everything and that they fully understand how every decision they make will affect everything so that every person can make decisions that are for the ultimate good of the system/themselves (arguably those are the one and the same, depends on the case thoguh).

So, for example it would assume that people would understand how products are produced, that people would be able to choose the product to buy based on an accessment of the overall impact of the product production on their lives, etc.

The issue is that not only do people rarely know these things, but even if they are vaguely aware they can't know how to weigh the information to make decisions based on anything other than immediate short term needs, and of course the fact that producers themselves typically intentionally try to confuse the situation. Marketing is essentially corproate propaganda. All marketing is deceptive, so this is one thing that has led America to be the most deceptive society in the world.

One thing I would love to see is major advertising reform.

 

[no one in particular]

NOP- I just want to be clear that only real reason why I initially incorporated capitalism into my response was that you claimed it came closer to democracy.

It took me a second to realize that “NOP” means “no one in particular”. Oh well, I guess I can be a bit slow. Anyway, sure, I understood that I brought up capitalism.

Okay, fine. Everyone can "increase their dollars," but it's all relative. The market still caters to those with more money, regardless.

Which gives me incentive to improve my position.

If you mean to say that anyone can become rich, I'll ony point out that not everyone can…

Don’t just point it out, demonstrate it.

…income mobility does not compensate for income inequality.

Again, I think this is all about incentive. Personally (and this comes from my experiences living in capitalism instead of socialism, so, it is admittedly one sided) I would not want to be born into the limits of my situation.

No it's not. There are natural and unnatural inequalities. Some people are born into wealth and privilege, and thus enjoy far greater opportunities than others.

Would this be the natural or the unnatural inequalities? Of course inheritance is a part of capitalism. That is one of the major motivators of the system. Not only am I improving my position, but the position of my offspring.

These advantages are unearned…

I will certainly agree with that.

…and undermine the idea of an "equal playing field."

I do not necessarily agree with this. Certainly inheritance of property or capitol increases someone’s position. However an individual generally does not receive that inheritance until late in life. Of course they have the benefit of living more comfortable until they are grown, but this is why I would support an income based (not racially based!) affirmative action. Hey, I did not say I was a full on Libertarian.

As I said there are many types of socialism. Michael Albert, for example, has a new book called Parecon: Life After Capitalism where he argues, quite persusaively, that remuneration ought to be based on effort (in capitalism it's based on productivity). A market socialist believes in fashioning firms as democratic institutions, so people may agree on any sort of payment scheme (there are still market mechanisms, but the owners decide).

I appreciate the suggested reading material, honestly.

I only quoted Chomsky to recount the idea that those who work in steel mills ought to own them. He doesn't play any greater role in my argument…

I apologize, I just have a knee-jerk reaction to Mr. Chomsky.

I'm not sure what your'e doing here.

Being a jerk, sorry...it is what I do.

To the first question: people ought to own the mill to have control over the lives. Socialists believe in this idea called self-management. Instead of taking orders from an arbitrary authority, everyone fashions the institutions where the labor to their own ideals (and, as I said, there are at least several different versions of socialism, just as there are variants of capitalism).

I think this may be my biggest problem with socialism. You have a major problem with property, but certainly even you can admit to intellectual property? If I am inventive and want to market my product or service how should that be to the benefit of someone I do not know? Why can I not allow only those of my choosing, those that I believe qualified, to assist me with my endeavor?

Finders-keepers?

Hey, you are making me look stupid. I know the cave example was a bad one…oh well. Any way, I thought my apples and oranges example was a good one.

I think it's better to imagine that we get ship-wrecked on an island because it does away with a lot of the needless complications in economics and philosophy.

Well sure, but in that example there is no reason to have law either.

So do some people just run out for a land grab and start claiming things?

I don’t think so, not since the Louisiana Purchase, anyway.

"I own that, and that, and that, and that; I own this coconut tree because I climbed to the top first;

No, because you planted it and cared for it.

If we do wish to bring in historical complications, how do you account for Europeans colonizing the Americas? They were discovered originally by the Indians, and forcibly pushed off the land. Are we to return it to the Indians now? If no, why?

I am sorry, I do not follow. Why does arguing for modern capitalism require defending historical genocide?

The first part is wrong: I was discussing property ownership, not the free-market (people need to legitimately possess things in order to trade them).

I think I have demonstrated at least two ways to legitimately own something: Intellectual property and cared for goods.

Cain, I appreciate your patience with both my admitted relative ignorance of the subject and my delayed response.

edited for gramur.

 

[Cain]

I am going to try to break with quoting conventions for this post because they're getting too tedious.

As for "incentives to improve" one's social-economic position, I think capitalist mechanisms are less than optimal. As stated earlier, the maket system rewards output rather than effort and sacrifice, which makes it 1) morally arbitrary; and 2) possibly less efficient. (for a possibly more detailed explanation see the earlier Poll.thread on people getting paid the same).

Why should someone get paid more money by virtue of their natural endowments? Suppose two people are born, one's a genuis, the other has a considerably below average IQ. Why should the former get paid, say, three times as much as the latter? Victor says because that genius has skills necessary to the economy, she increases efficiency, and produces greater wealth for everyone (and if he wants to incorporate a principle from teh celebrated political philosopher John Rawls, he might add that such as a scheme is to the benefit of the least advantaged (in our case, the person of below average intelligence)).

But, as I said earlier, that contradicts the principle that outcomes ought to be determined by choice rather circumstance.

On the efficiency side, suppose we remunerate according to effort rather than productivity. And this time, for the sake of simplicity, let's compare physical rather than intellectual endowment between five people in the context of a foot race (even playing field, remember). One person, let's say is the son of Carl Lewis; three others are Joe six-packs; the last might be an asthamatic.

We say there are rewards for the order in which you cross the finish line. The winner might get $300, second place $200, third 150, it doesn't matter. Now if our top guy can win easily, then what incentive does he have to make a good time? He just needs to beat out the others. What incentive does the slowest person have considering that he has no chance at winning?

But if you reward on the basis of effort, then everyone has an incentive to try his hardest. You'll get outcomes where someone runs a five minute mile and gets paid the same as the guy who took 12 minutes. Our knee-jerk reaction is that this is unfair, but that view, I hope we now realize, is mistaken.

As for not everyone becoming rich, I think it's a truism. Not everyone can be in the top 10% no matter how hard they try. I purposely spoke of relative wealth. By relative standards today, I'm not rich. By standards from two centuries ago, I'm insanely wealthy. Or we can just compare the cab-drivers, professors, and school teachers in Los Angeles to those laboring in São Paulo. Do the people here work harder? No, not really. But they're undoubtedly "more efficient."

I think this may be my biggest problem with socialism. You have a major problem with property, but certainly even you can admit to intellectual property? If I am inventive and want to market my product or service how should that be to the benefit of someone I do not know? Why can I not allow only those of my choosing, those that I believe qualified, to assist me with my endeavor?

Though it's a slightly unrelated, I should distinguish between an idiosyncratic distinctino between property and possessions. Socialists/anarchists et al. are primarily concerned about the productive assets of society (factories, etc.). They fully agree that I should have dictatorial control over the half-read mystery novel on sitting on my bed. That is to say, a factory is property and a book is a possession. It's not an exceedingly coherent (or unassailable) idea, but it helps.

As for organizing a project as you please-- that's precisely what socialists desire. That YOU have a say in who your co-workers are, production schedules, and so on. Everyone becomes a partial-owner and manages their affairs democratically (rather than taking orders from the top).

I know the cave example was a bad one…oh well. Any way, I thought my apples and oranges example was a good one.

I think this is where the property/possession distinction helps. If the Unabomber chooses to live out in a shed in the woods, then no one cars (killing people is a different story). If you want to pick an apple from a tree, or even claim one up in the mountains as "yours," fine. But these are lone individuals cut off from society. Property is a social institution that affects the entire community.

No, because you planted it and cared for it.

On land, Spencer again is worth consulting:

Not only have present land tenures an indefensible origin, but it is impossible to discover any mode in which land can become private property. Cultivation is commonly considered to give a legitimate title. He who has reclaiemd a tract of ground from its primitive wildness, is upposed to have thereby made it his own. But if his right is disputed, by what system of logic can he vindicate it? Let us listen a moment to his pleadings.

"Hallo, you Sir," cries the cosmpolite to some backwoodsman, smoking at the door of his shanty., "by what authority do you take possession of these acres that you cleared; roudn which you have put up a snake-fence, and on which you have build this log-house?"
"By what authority? I squatted here because tehre was no one to say nay -- because I was as much liberty to do so as any other man. Besides, now that I have cut down the wood, and poloughed and cropped the ground, this farm is more mine thatn yours, or anybody's; and I mean to keep it."
"Ay, so you all say. But I do not yet see how you have substantiated your claim. When you came here you found the land producing trees -- sugar-maples, perhaps; or may be it was covered with praire-grass and wild strawberries. Well, instead of these, you made it yield wheat, or maize, or tobacco. Now I want to understand how, by eterminating one set of plants, and making hte soil bear another set in their place, you have constituted yourself lord of this soil for all succeeding time..."

"...why [does] such a process make the portion of the earth you have modified yours. What have you done? Youhave turned over the soil ato a few inches in depth. with a spade or a plough; you have scatterd over this prepared surface a few seeds; and you have gathered the fruits hich the sun, rain, and air, helped the soil to produce. Just tell me, if you please, by what magic these acts made you sole owner of that vast mass of matter, having for its base the surface of your estate, and for its apex the centre of the globe? all of which it appears you would monopolise to yourself and your descendents forever."

and on and on. Besides, in my simplified example of the island, nobody planted the coconut tree. I'm still not convinced how a person comes to own part of the external world as their own without input from a surrounding society.

I am sorry, I do not follow. Why does arguing for modern capitalism require defending historical genocide?

A person's claim to property is only as legitimate as the last owner. So, suppose you purchase a stereo from the store (we're assuming capitalist relations, obviously), and you enjoy it for a day or so. Then I assault you with a weapon and order that you hand over the stereo. Now I'm the owner, although it has been taken by force, and almost everybody regards my claim to the device as illigitimate. Further suppose that I sell the stereo to someone (what we regard as a just transfer). This final party has done nothing wrong (assuming he has no idea it was first stolen). Do we regard that final owner as legitimate, though? I don't think so. The same principles apply to the foundations of our country (see again the first Spencer quote). How much time must elapse before our claims become legitimate? Libertarians and conservatives, if they truly believed in property rights, would be in favor of returning a great deal of te present-day United States back to Native Americans.

I think I have demonstrated at least two ways to legitimately own something: Intellectual property and cared for goods.

Where are the justifications? Most arguments for intellectual "property" are grounded in utilitarian justification. In some ways it's anti-capitalistic (state granted monopoly on an idea; see above barriers to entry in a free-market). No sane person, I think, believes that intellectual copyrights, as they exist today, can be owned fifty years after death, transferred to heirs and so on. as for "cared for goods," again, I may have missed the argument. But let me point out that it sounds as though you're implicitly appealing to effort and sacrifice, values I would hope could be incorprated into the larger picture.

 

[Victor Danilchenko]

Cain

As I said earlier, it's extremely difficult for socialism to function within capitalism,

Indeed. And since humans are heterogeneous, and so are human society, you will inevitably get some capitalistic elements, which will inevitably out-compete the socialistic ones that aren't efficient. Which is why I regard socialism, even in its "good" incarnations, as impractical.

but I still don't see how the failure of the cooperatives mentioned obviates worker democracy.

Well, this simply suggests that a socialist state would have to use force to prevent the rise of capitalist elements. Sounds familiar?

That's a cop-out. If we're discussing murder, say, can someone just glibly dismiss all philosophical discussion on the topic as morally dubious because, alas, that is the nature of ethics? I think not. Legitimate property ownership is a serious problem for capitalism.

Well, no. Property rights are socially constructed, but that doesn't make them illegitimate. I was simply pointing out that ethics being what it is, any social construct can be rendered "ethically dubious" in an appropriately formulated ethical scheme.

No, I disagree. The welfare state, regulations and government actions are not genuinely democratic. We do not have the sort of direct control required by a values of self-mangement.

So they are not directly democratic, but representatively democratic. So what?

Going back to the argument from efficiency, one may ask, " efficiency at what costs?

My point exactly. What we need to consider is not purely ideological statements like "Everyone has a right to property control" or "Everyone should be equal", but also pragmatic costs of implementing such and ideological costs of improving efficiency at the expense of ideology. This is the same argument that you and I applied to "natural rights" libertarians -- but now the shoe is on the other foot.

The Welfare capitalism described is not worker control. No one has a say in their day to day lives.

Nor would they in a cooperative, not in the way that's radically different from status quo. In a cooperative, the members would have to convince other members to implement a change; we now have to vote in government representatives that would do so. It's merely a quantitative question of scale and of the number of levels of indirection, nor a question of the very availability of control.

They're not directly involved in the decision making process of the firm. Power is turned over to bureaucrats who decide what's in the best interests of others.

... which bureaucrats are in turn controlled by elected officials. Ultimately, people do have control -- just the route to it is somewhat convoluted.

if he wants to incorporate a principle from teh celebrated political philosopher John Rawls, he might add that such as a scheme is to the benefit of the least advantaged (in our case, the person of below average intelligence)

Actually, I was specifically thinking of Rawls when I wrote about the efficiency benefits of wealth disparity. Rawlsian criteria are pretty strict, and if my argument could satisfy them, it would be that much harder to reject.

As an aside, I think Rawls got it totally wrong.

On the efficiency side, suppose we remunerate according to effort rather than productivity. And this time, for the sake of simplicity, let's compare physical rather than intellectual endowment between five people in the context of a foot race (even playing field, remember). One person, let's say is the son of Carl Lewis; three others are Joe six-packs; the last might be an asthamatic.

We say there are rewards for the order in which you cross the finish line. The winner might get $300, second place $200, third 150, it doesn't matter. Now if our top guy can win easily, then what incentive does he have to make a good time? He just needs to beat out the others. What incentive does the slowest person have considering that he has no chance at winning?

First of all, realistic example would be that everyone gets rewarded on a scale; in an ideal case, reward is determined by a monotonically increasing function, rather than a step function. Under such conditions, everyone has an incentive to try harder.

Secondly, if you reward effort, how do you ensure that the effort goes to a useful cause? Rewarding result ensures that you are rewarded in relationship to how your actions benefit society. Otherwise, I may spent years mastering underwater basket weaving with chopsticks, and expend a great deal of effort on it -- to what end?

Since what I ultimately seek is the greatest good for the greatest number, I see rewarding result as the only way to go. The function determining reward wouldn't be linear, but reward should be based on result, and monotonically so.

 

[Malachi151]

I still think that my idea is by far the best. All we need is a national investment system where everyone pays a 5% tax, like FICA, and they get shares in a national investment portfolio. Everyone gets shares based on the number of hours they work.

The money is pooled and and redistributed equally based on hours. So every hour is equal. A hour for a garbage man is equal to an hour for a CEO. This way the poor and middle class would gain investment shares in the private sector in a way that they could otherwise not afford.

Investing is all we need, that IS socialism. The only problem now is that you have to be rich to invest, so its a useless system in terms of socialism. By using investment we achieve redistribution of wealth, and public ownership of the means of production in a wya that is not intrusive, and it helps private industry, and it keeps the governemnt out of everything. The governmet's only role is just as a broker, it doesn't actually do anything or run industry or make anything government poperty. It just manages the account.

Boom, simple problem solved.

 

[Cain]

Well, this simply suggests that a socialist state would have to use force to prevent the rise of capitalist elements. Sounds familiar?

Yep, and it's never, ever the reverse: Nicaragua, Chile, Vietnam, Guatemala, El Salvador, Haiti, Cuba, Afghanistan. I can continue if you wish.

Socialism does not necessitate a state. As I've said, there are many anarchist alternatives that resist centralization: parecon, municipal libertarianism, syndiclism.

Well, no. Property rights are socially constructed, but that doesn't make them illegitimate. I was simply pointing out that ethics being what it is, any social construct can be rendered "ethically dubious" in an appropriately formulated ethical scheme.

Fine; but what's the argument for legitimate ownership? Where does it come from?

So they are not directly democratic, but representatively democratic. So what?

I might even disagree that they're "representative." The Constitution originally held that the Senators were to be elected by House representatives. That's still representative, in a sense. But it means less control over our lives.

My point exactly. What we need to consider is not purely ideological statements like "Everyone has a right to property control" or "Everyone should be equal", but also pragmatic costs of implementing such and ideological costs of improving efficiency at the expense of ideology. This is the same argument that you and I applied to "natural rights" libertarians -- but now the shoe is on the other foot.

No doubt. But I do not even agree that capitalism is the most efficient system: the maldistribution of resources, no understanding of sustainability, etc. But where's your trade-off? Economists can place a value on human life. I think the average person today is worth around five million dollars (minorities, women, and the handicapped, are worth less, on average, than white males). It's not difficult to imagine a factory producing a frivolous luxury good for rich people while polluting poor people in the surrounding area. Do we run a cost-benefit analysis to see if they live?

Nor would they in a cooperative, not in the way that's radically different from status quo. In a cooperative, the members would have to convince other members to implement a change; we now have to vote in government representatives that would do so. It's merely a quantitative question of scale and of the number of levels of indirection, nor a question of the very availability of control.

"not a question of the very availability?"

Allow me to insert a moral principle in here that deals with production: Individuals ought to have control over a policy to the proportion in which they are affected. An office, according to the parecon scheme to use an example, isn't just a simple democracy. We do not democratically decide whether or not Becky can place a picture of her son her desk. The people on the fifth floor have no say on the punk rock music Jim listens to (unless they can hear it). But surrounding co-workers DO in so far that it affects them.

... which bureaucrats are in turn controlled by elected officials. Ultimately, people do have control -- just the route to it is somewhat convoluted.

The same ideas is used by capitalists when recalling "consumer soverignity." That's not control; it's not self-management; it's not moral autonomy.

As an aside, I think Rawls got it totally wrong.

??

First of all, realistic example would be that everyone gets rewarded on a scale; in an ideal case, reward is determined by a monotonically increasing function, rather than a step function. Under such conditions, everyone has an incentive to try harder.

But that's not how capitalism or labor markets work. Instead it's one person or company offering the unemployed a wage. When I work at blockbuster, say, I generate more money than the store pays me (Marx's exploitation via the theft of surplus value). There's no incentive to work harder, and others are getting rich by virtue of their ownership, not effort or sacrifice.

Secondly, if you reward effort, how do you ensure that the effort goes to a useful cause? Rewarding result ensures that you are rewarded in relationship to how your actions benefit society. Otherwise, I may spent years mastering underwater basket weaving with chopsticks, and expend a great deal of effort on it -- to what end?

Socially useful labor is addressed under all models. Nobody says that anyone doing anything deserves to get compensated.

www.parecon.org/ is the example I've been using throughout.

 

[NoZed Avenger]

The money is pooled and and redistributed equally based on hours. So every hour is equal. A hour for a garbage man is equal to an hour for a CEO. This way the poor and middle class would gain investment shares in the private sector in a way that they could otherwise not afford.

A doctor spends eight plus years learning his profession. Putting aside the huge costs associated with that education, he finishes his studies and goes out to work. . . And is paid the same as if he is working at McDonald's? In fact, he's far, far behind the McDonald's worker, who has eight years of wealth accumulated.

A power line worker -- putting aside the training and education that he needs, as well -- is called out regularly at night and during storms and there is some danger associated with his job. Yet he and the McDonald's worker are rewarded at the same rate?

A nurse at a cancer ward -- again, putting aside education and costs -- must put up with emotional strains and stress at almost inconceivable levels. . . . But that McDonald's worker gets paid the same.

So, under this Utopian fix-everything system, why should I get an education - since I can get the same money for any type of work? Why should I take a hard job, or a dangerous job, or one that takes a great deal of training? Why should I -risk- anything on an untried technology or idea or invention, since I cannot be rewarded for my effort?

Who's going to make me take one of those dangerous or difficult jobs? Who's going to make sure that we have enough doctors, engineers, nurses, electricians, etc. etc.? What mechanism do you use to ensure that those jobs are taken by people? Do you simply close your eyes and wish people into the correct professions?

Boom, simple problem solved.

And a whole host of complicated, insidious problems created.

Your definition of "solved" appears to differ from mine -- this appears to be more like "rearranged."

NA

 

[Tony]

When is a market "free"? When there is no anti monopoly restrictions? Would the software market be "free" if microsoft was "free" to put all competition out of business? Or is is more "free" when controls ensure the big players cannot wipe out the small.

I think we agree but we dont realize it.

Im of the opinion that if a monopoly is allowed to stamp out competition and rule the market, than the market isnt free(its ruled by the monopoly). Rules need to be made and enforced to ensure that the market stays free and competition remains healthy.

 

[Malachi151]

A doctor spends eight plus years learning his profession. Putting aside the huge costs associated with that education, he finishes his studies and goes out to work. . . And is paid the same as if he is working at McDonald's? In fact, he's far, far behind the McDonald's worker, who has eight years of wealth accumulated.

A power line worker -- putting aside the training and education that he needs, as well -- is called out regularly at night and during storms and there is some danger associated with his job. Yet he and the McDonald's worker are rewarded at the same rate?

A nurse at a cancer ward -- again, putting aside education and costs -- must put up with emotional strains and stress at almost inconceivable levels. . . . But that McDonald's worker gets paid the same.

So, under this Utopian fix-everything system, why should I get an education - since I can get the same money for any type of work? Why should I take a hard job, or a dangerous job, or one that takes a great deal of training? Why should I -risk- anything on an untried technology or idea or invention, since I cannot be rewarded for my effort?

Who's going to make me take one of those dangerous or difficult jobs? Who's going to make sure that we have enough doctors, engineers, nurses, electricians, etc. etc.? What mechanism do you use to ensure that those jobs are taken by people? Do you simply close your eyes and wish people into the correct professions?



And a whole host of complicated, insidious problems created.

Your definition of "solved" appears to differ from mine -- this appears to be more like "rearranged."

NA [/B]

It might help if you actully read what I said.

I never said anyone would be paid the same.

The system would work in a similar way to Social Security, except the money would be invested in a whole market stock index and also whole market bond index and you would have access to the funds at all times instead of waiting until retirement.

Its baseically just a similar idea to Social Security is all, and until SS there would never ben any need to maintian the funds at a certain level, the funds could never run out. Each person would have an indivdual account and whatever is in there is in there. If the market goes down, then oh well.

Everyone would receive the same shares in the system just like everyone gets generally the same out of Social Security. Standard pay would remain unchanged a doctor would not manek any less money than they make now, and a fast food person would make no more. Private industry would benefit greatly from the increased investment.