Is Socialism an Utopia?

[Francesca R]

As evidence that altruism out-weighed self-interest, at least of the individual level, is to be seen in the many fossils available. Individuals so badly injured that they could hardly have stood upright frequently survived and recoivered, even though many of them clearly would have continued to need a great deal of community support. The Homo habilis remains found by Donald Johanson at Oulduvai showed clear indications of totally debilitating bone disease from which the individual recovered. Many of the Dmanisi remains (Homo ergaster? H. erectus?) are clearly geriatric, some to a debilitating extent. There seems only one explanation. Even at that low level of physical evolution, they cared about each other and were willing to donate a good deal of the community wealth to maintaining these people in their old age and infirmity.

I don't see where this account says it outweighed self interest. Supposing it did--did this collective trait get "co-operated away"? What happened to it?

The record of that is spotty and, since 1980, at least, trending more toward ruthless competition.

No, the evidence of self-interested co-operation is ubiquitous. For example, a fundamentalist muslim working for a state-owned business in Iran, whose government then lends money to a life sciences firm in Switzerland which then develops arthritic painkilling medication which is later purchased by a distributor in the US and then finds its way to alleviating the suffering of an elderly fundamentalist christian conservative farmer in the midwest. Through the system of capitalism, the xtian-hating muslim co-operated with the islamophobic christian. Not because they decided to be nice to each other, but because their self-interest (and that of the other links in the chain) was served.

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

May I ask you if you would care for an aging, ailing disabled Republican? Would you spend money to take care of him, or does your altruism only work for people who think like you?

I see alot of belligerent competitivity in your overall behavior on this forum.

I don't know about him, but personally I never put conditions like that. Society should be judged by how it treats his least fortunate members, regardless of what they happen to believe in.

 

[Darth Rotor]

Maybe I should have italicized my last two words for you.

I got it, and I agreed with your zing. So I voted with you.

My further along comments were addressing the rest of the comments, maybe I should have specified.

 

[Achán hiNidráne]

Capitalism is useful, but like fire it should not be left unchecked.

Depending on the situation, one could say the exact same thing about socialism, too.

I find that I'm becoming more and more of an economic pragmatist: Whatever works, we should use it, and I don't see any thing inherently "moral" or "immoral" about capitalism or socialism.

It's how it's used that matters.

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

Relative to what/where? Unemployment in France is usually lower than Germany, (at least, since unification), and about the same as Italy, but generally a couple of % higher than in Japan, the UK or US.

I don't think that a couple of percent more unemployed would skew the productivity/hour numbers that much, sorry. I don't think the numbers support the kind of simplistic "yeah, well, they just don't hire the least productive people" that I was answering to.

Plus, it seems to me that the Phillips Curve still applies. Lower unemployment means higher inflation, or viceversa. The UK was aiming at a different equilibrium point with 2.3% inflation compared to France's 1.5%, at least in 2007, while the USA was having 2.9% inflation in the same year.

So, you know, it's not exactly the "all else being equal" kind of thing that would support that handwaved conclusion. The fiscal policy of the 3 countries, as reflected in the inflation rate, accounts for a lot of the unemployment difference. There's hardly any more need for the kind of speculation that the french just deny someone employment, that, again, I was answering to.

 

[Pardalis]

I don't know about him, but personally I never put conditions like that. Society should be judged by how it treats his least fortunate members, regardless of what they happen to believe in.

As far as Lefty is concerned, there's a war going on within his own country between two competing factions, and he's doing everything he can do undermine his nemesis, which is anything but altruism, so I'm calling his bluff about how he alledgedly so highly values altruism over self-interest. I'm not buying it.

 

[Francesca R]

I don't think that a couple of percent more unemployed would skew the productivity/hour numbers that much, sorry.

Au contraire I think that higher unemployment is in large part the price paid for higher output per hour. Not that French labour laws are in any way aimed at pushing up productivity per hour, by the way.

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

Right. At about half a percent unemployment difference from the EU average, it can't possibly have anything to do with Euro fiscal policy, and it must be the doing of France-speciffic laws

 

[MikeMangum]

Not nonsense, however if you want to use a definition of utopian which simply means "perfection" then please feel free to do so, it's a not a definition I will be using.

I guess we can simply come up with our definitions for words now, in spite of their actual meanings? Utopia doesn't mean "the best we can do" or "optimum society", it means a perfect society.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/UTOPIA

Main Entry: uto·pia
Pronunciation: \yu̇-ˈtō-pē-ə\
Function: noun
Etymology: Utopia, imaginary and ideal country in Utopia (1516) by Sir Thomas More, from Greek ou not, no + topos place
Date: 1597
1 : an imaginary and indefinitely remote place
2 often capitalized : a place of ideal perfection especially in laws, government, and social conditions
3 : an impractical scheme for social improvement

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/utopia

U⋅to⋅pi⋅a  /yuˈtoʊpiə/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [yoo-toh-pee-uh]

–noun 1. an imaginary island described in Sir Thomas More's Utopia (1516) as enjoying perfection in law, politics, etc.
2. (usually lowercase) an ideal place or state.
3. (usually lowercase) any visionary system of political or social perfection.

http://www.yourdictionary.com/utopia

Uto·pia (yo̵̅o̅ tō′pē ə)

noun

1.an imaginary island described in a book of the same name by Sir Thomas More (1516) as having a perfect political and social system
2.
a.any idealized place, state, or situation of perfection
b.any visionary scheme or system for an ideally perfect society
c.a novel or other work depicting a utopian society or place

That's why for the Soviets to create their version of Utopia required perfecting mankind itself, hence the New Soviet Man.

The three major changes postulated to be indispensable for the building of the communist society were economical and political changes, accompanied with the changes in the human personality.[citation needed]

The Soviet man was to be selfless, learned, healthy and enthusiastic in spreading the socialist Revolution. Adherence to Marxism-Leninism, and individual behaviour consistent with that philosophy's prescriptions, were among the crucial traits expected of the New Soviet man.

Author and philosopher Bernard Byhovsky, Ph.D. writes: "The new man is endowed, first of all, with a new ethical outlook."

Here's a hint for those who believe in marxism: if your perfect political structure requires a radical change in human nature to work, your political structure might not be so "perfect".

 

[leftysergeant]

May I ask you if you would care for an aging, ailing disabled Republican?

As long as he was, prior to his disability, contributing to the over-all health of the community, and not abusing his fellows. If he has destroyed the commons so that everyone else is starving, he is just going to have to suffer with the rest of us, and a lot of people are not going to take any special care to see that he gets what he feels he needs as long as someone who has played by the rules is suffering disproportionatly.

Would you spend money to take care of him, or does your altruism only work for people who think like you?

My altruism is addressed toward the good of the collective, rather than toward individuals. During our productive years, we should all contribute to building up resources to carry the collective through the tough times

The individual who squanders common resources during prosperous times has no right to whine when the resources are not there to sustain him in times of famine.

Looking out for everybody is part of looking out for yourself. A lack of altruism, isolating your interests from those of the collective, is as risky as it is petty.

 

[Darth Rotor]

Looking out for everybody is part of looking out for yourself. A lack of altruism, isolating your interests from those of the collective, is as risky as it is petty.

I am trying to figure out who isolates their interests from those of society, or the other citizens. Where you seem to have a disagreement with others is on the degree of overlap. I cannot imagine a perfect overlap model, but maybe there is a close to optimal band?


Can you please clarify what you mean by "the collective" before I offer comment on that?

DR

 

[Pardalis]

As long as he was, prior to his disability, contributing to the over-all health of the community, and not abusing his fellows.

But as a Republican, and potential rapist, would you help take care of him?

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

I'm thinking you're upping the ante a bit there, with the "potential rapist". I don't remember it being a part of the original question.

Plus, what's a "potential rapist" anyway? Someone with male genitalia?

 

[Pardalis]

Plus, what's a "potential rapist" anyway? Someone with male genitalia?

According to Lefty, a Republican.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5330802&postcount=19
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5336737&postcount=68

 

[leftysergeant]

But as a Republican, and potential rapist, would you help take care of him?

As an individual, probably not. I haven't the resources to take care of people who have acted morally. An ideal society will have collective funds available to help all who fall behind. Those who have not contributred to the best of their ability to build that safety net have no business whining that it does not catch them.

 

[Pardalis]

As an individual, probably not.

But it's your responsibility to take care of all individuals within the collective, whatever their political affiliation is, right?

I haven't the resources to take care of people who have acted morally.

You mean immorally? What about the prisons, and the inmates, aren't they part of the collective and shouldn't they be cared for?

Those who have not contributred to the best of their ability to build that safety net have no business whining that it does not catch them.

What does that mean, "have no business"? What is to be done to them? Shun them from society? Execute them? What?

How do you sort out who is entitled to help and who isn't ?

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

I am trying to figure out who isolates their interests from those of society, or the other citizens. Where you seem to have a disagreement with others is on the degree of overlap. I cannot imagine a perfect overlap model, but maybe there is a close to optimal band?
View attachment 15891

Can you please clarify what you mean by "the collective" before I offer comment on that?

DR

Actually, if you want a graph, personally I'd rather use the one here:

http://www.cantrip.org/stupidity.html

Why? I keep hearing for example that greed is good, but that seems to be handwaved at the expense of leaving no room for how much or at whose expense. Those 4 quadrants and especially the second diagonal offer a much more productive view into it.

There are people who make a profit while contributing to the others' wellfare too. And transactions like that. The classic example of England exporting wool to France and importing wine from there is exactly that kind of transaction: each gets something that for it is more expensive than what it exported.

There are people who make a profit at others' expense. What on that site is called "bandit". Their win comes at the expense of someone's loss.

And for some they make a much smaller gain than the loss they caused.

And to be fair in the altruism quadrant (what he calls "helpless") not all is good either. There are people who make a much bigger loss than the good they caused.

Basically the real question IMHO isn't whether self-interest is black or white, or even if altruism is pure white or black. Nor one of abstract overlap of "we" and "me".

The question is whether an action or model falls on the upper-right side of that second diagonal, or the lower left. Actions in the upper right side actually cause a net gain on the whole, those in the lower left cause a net loss.

Additionally, everyone who's consistently in the lower 2 quadrants effectively causes a loss to others. Whether they actually make a gain ("bandit") or they make a loss too ("stupid"), they nevertheless are a sink for society's resources. And while I won't be hard on them if it's by bad luck, disease, sheer stupidity, etc, anyone whose very philosophy is to aim for someone else's loss, is a parasite plain and simple.

 

[Francesca R]

Right. At about half a percent unemployment difference from the EU average, it can't possibly have anything to do with Euro fiscal policy, and it must be the doing of France-speciffic laws

I compared it with Japan, UK, USA. France and Germany (which has similar labour/industrial policy, except it also had to accommodate former East Germany 20 years back which had a long-lasting upward impulse on Pan-German unemployment) are a huge part of the EU by themselves, so that limits the use your comparison.

 

[Darth Rotor]

Actually, if you want a graph, personally I'd rather use the one here:

http://www.cantrip.org/stupidity.html

No, not a graph, a sketch of sets that overlap to varying degrees, between the individual and "everyeone else" who lefty seems to call "the collective" in his post.

Why? I keep hearing for example that greed is good, but that seems to be handwaved at the expense of leaving no room for how much or at whose expense.

Since you are having that discussion with somebody inside your head, why do you bring that up to me?

But it's a funny page.

There are people who make a profit while contributing to the others' wellfare too. And transactions like that. The classic example of England exporting wool to France and importing wine from there is exactly that kind of transaction: each gets something that for it is more expensive than what it exported.

Short version: win-win.

There are people who make a profit at others' expense. What on that site is called "bandit". Their win comes at the expense of someone's loss.

Short version: win-lose

And for some they make a much smaller gain than the loss they caused.

Poor aim.

And to be fair in the altruism quadrant (what he calls "helpless") not all is good either. There are people who make a much bigger loss than the good they caused.

Short Answer: UN, and the varietal NGO's who feed foreign aid junkies.

The overlap, Hans, is where it starts. It informs what is optional or that which can be compelled by "legitimate" force, be it threat, physical, moral, what have you.

Additionally, everyone who's consistently in the lower 2 quadrants effectively causes a loss to others. Whether they actually make a gain ("bandit") or they make a loss too ("stupid"), they nevertheless are a sink for society's resources.

So you do need that abstract "we" after all. Thanks.

And while I won't be hard on them if it's by bad luck, disease, sheer stupidity, etc, anyone whose very philosophy is to aim for someone else's loss, is a parasite plain and simple.

I thought you called him a bandit. Which is it? Or they are both parasites. The model, which like most models is limited, has left out the simply and deliberately lazy, who do exist in finite numbers, be they large or small. (They aren't all stupid). Do you consider them thieves?

So, whilst trying to divert me from "the collective" you have amused me, so thank you. No surprise that Prof. Cipolla scratched out that paper in 1991, when the country (Italy? California? US?) was obviously "going to hell" in his educated estimation.

DR

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

Since you are having that discussion with somebody inside your head, why do you bring that up to me?

Because while it's a different over-simplification, I feel you're doing that kind of over-simplification too. And I'm finding it counter-productive by now that this kind of talk degenerates into useless abstractions every single time.

So you do need that abstract "we" after all. Thanks.

The abstract "we" isn't what I was disputing. It was the various abstract over-simplifications, including that "how much overlap there is" which IMHO miss the point. The more relevant issue is whether someone's actions and philosophy benefit society or are detrimental to it.

I thought you called him a bandit. Which is it? Or they are both parasites.

If you would call a bandit anything else than a parasite, I'm curious what

But yes, I was talking about both lower quadrants in as much as they're deliberate.

The model, which like most models is limited

The model wasn't even made for that, although it does come from an economics professor. Nevertheless, as makeshift aides go, I find it more useful than the usual abstractions that miss those two variables entirely. It's a start.

has left out the simply and deliberately lazy, who do exist in finite numbers, be they large or small. (They aren't all stupid). Do you consider them thieves?

They fall in his "stupid" category if they cause a loss without even gaining anything out of it, or even at a personal loss. They fall into "bandit" if their gain is someone else's loss.

But, yes, if anyone's plan is that someone else should pay so they can idle at home and watch football, then they are exactly what the bandit quadrant is about.