Socialism or two-tier capitalism?

[DaraghM]

Mmm. So we're saying socialism has never been tested in practice on a national scale? What about sub-national?

Russia 1917-1923

Hungary for part of 1919

Bavaria again part of 1919

Parts of Spain during 1936-1939

In Ireland

Limerick Soviet 1919

And on a smaller scale -

Soviets in Arigna, Knocklong, Bruff, Castleconnell

to name a few.

Beginings of workers power in Hungary 1956 and Czechslovakia in 1968 (crushed by Russian tanks)

Hmm. So the maximum time it has managed in a post-revolutionary state is how long? As long as one Irish government term?

This whole list is pretty desperate. With the exception of one hugely repressive authoritarian dictatorship, you have a smattering of either unstable self-declared governments that quickly collapsed in the face of their own lack of any authority, the somewhat bizarre example of the Spanish Republic which spent its entire existence fighting a war, not 'implementing real socialism.'
Finally you massively insult the protestors of 56 and 68, who despite your self-serving line of thinking came out in the streets to tell the Soviet Union to ************************ off and let them elect their own leaders, not 'to better implement socialism.' They were REJECTING it!

You really are reaching here JRG.

[Barry]

Ah. So we're simply deterministic robots, then?

Why on earth should a deterministic robot be given the full value of their labour, though - after all, that's just the "person's interaction with material surroundings" - not of their choosing. Surely they are simply pre-programmed production units?

You have explained nothing and have answered with questions.


Where do ideas come from then Ibis?

Did God implant the idea. Did the person, through their own genius, irrespective of material conditions, simply come up with the idea?

Where Ibis.

And tell me why the person should be rewarded.

[ibis]

By that standard, isn't everything? Aren't all decision, for example, the result of a person's interaction with his or her material surroundings and his or her physical construction?

And whats your point?

Its plain and simple. Should a person be rewarded for coming up with an idea on the basis they were born, or encountered, material circumstances?

If yes, we can justify the rule of monarchs.

Or do ideas come from the persons "greatness" or "intelligence"(on average), whereby we can assert that Africa and its people, with few ideas emerging, are racially inferior. And, infact, Britain, Germany, France and the USA are composed of the "master race" whereby most ideas and inventions we know of today have emerged "simply because of their own genius" (or whatever ridiculous justification is given).

To promote and reward a person for coming up with an idea is to promote the idea of racial subordination and justification enough for the existence of Monarchs.

On the one hand you could justify a persons position based on circumstantial material conditions, on the other, you could deny that ideas are solely due to material interaction and justify racial subordination.

Alternativly, you can accept that a person should not be rewarded for circumstance and that ideas are the result of material interaction.

You can also refuse either of these frankly laughable positions.

The claim that a person's birth, upbringing, material circumstances etc simply determine what ideas they will have is counter to all available evidence.

The claim that accepting the value of ideas is exactly the same as accepting the primacy of birth doesn't logically follow at all.

That Africa "comes up with fewer ideas than other regions" is a bizarre claim. What measure is used? Patents? Nobel prizes?

That one can step from "fewer ideas" to racism requires one to be a racist already.

Honestly, the whole idea is nonsense.

[stringjack]

And whats your point?

Well, my point was, I think, the same as ibis's.

Its plain and simple. Should a person be rewarded for coming up with an idea on the basis they were born, or encountered, material circumstances?

If yes, we can justify the rule of monarchs.

Or do ideas come from the persons "greatness" or "intelligence"(on average), whereby we can assert that Africa and its people, with few ideas emerging, are racially inferior. And, infact, Britain, Germany, France and the USA are composed of the "master race" whereby most ideas and inventions we know of today have emerged "simply because of their own genius" (or whatever ridiculous justification is given).

To promote and reward a person for coming up with an idea is to promote the idea of racial subordination and justification enough for the existence of Monarchs.

On the one hand you could justify a persons position based on circumstantial material conditions, on the other, you could deny that ideas are solely due to material interaction and justify racial subordination.

Alternativly, you can accept that a person should not be rewarded for circumstance and that ideas are the result of material interaction.

...and for those of you playing along at home: How many different logical fallacies can you identify in Barry's post?

[stringjack]

In any case this all goes back to the 'risk-aversion' in quantity-driven production firms offering outside a market. Technological advance will invariably slow down because new technologies are inherently uncertain, and will thus be avoided by planners in favour of achievable goals.

Actually, I imagine the problem might be just the opposite (and you should pay more attention to Pax's position, which I don't think would endorse centralised command planning). If decisions regarding risk are made collectively and democratically then we may have a decision-making process in which the population is gambling with other people's money (if we can be forgiven the capitalistic terminology) - kind of like what the stock market would look like if people didn't actually have to pay any money to play.

[ibis]

Ah. So we're simply deterministic robots, then?

Why on earth should a deterministic robot be given the full value of their labour, though - after all, that's just the "person's interaction with material surroundings" - not of their choosing. Surely they are simply pre-programmed production units?

You have explained nothing and have answered with questions.


Where do ideas come from then Ibis?

Did God implant the idea. Did the person, through their own genius, irrespective of material conditions, simply come up with the idea?

The answer is....we don't know. We understand very little of the nature of consciousness and creativity, but we do know that one person can be very creative, while their sibling isn't.

If "ideas" arise simply from the material interactions of the material brain with its environment in a mechanistic fashion, then free will does not exist, nor does morality, nor should law, because there is no culpability.

Where Ibis.

And tell me why the person should be rewarded.

Because as far as we know, ideas do not arise in the mechanistic way you claim they do.

[ibis]

In any case this all goes back to the 'risk-aversion' in quantity-driven production firms offering outside a market. Technological advance will invariably slow down because new technologies are inherently uncertain, and will thus be avoided by planners in favour of achievable goals.

Actually, I imagine the problem might be just the opposite (and you should pay more attention to Pax's position, which I don't think would endorse centralised command planning). If decisions regarding risk are made collectively and democratically then we may have a decision-making process in which the population is gambling with other people's money (if we can be forgiven the capitalistic terminology) - kind of like what the stock market would look like if people didn't actually have to pay any money to play.

I'd agree with stringjack here. If the consumer committee decides it needs X, why not ask for the most innovative form of X? They will neither have to develop it, nor produce it, nor pay for that production - why not ask?

Highlights another problem - why not ask for 150 X when you probably really only need 100 X? If you have spares, you don't need to be so careful with them.

[Barry]

The claim that a person's birth, upbringing, material circumstances etc simply determine what ideas they will have is counter to all available evidence.

For example...

The claim that accepting the value of ideas is exactly the same as accepting the primacy of birth doesn't logically follow at all.

I am not discussing the "value" of ideas. I am discusing the origin.

That Africa "comes up with fewer ideas than other regions" is a bizarre claim. What measure is used? Patents? Nobel prizes?

Well, somewhat inaccurate ill admit. Industrial era technological developments to the present day shall we say.

That one can step from "fewer ideas" to racism requires one to be a racist already.

Not really. Rewarding those with ideas is to discriminate against those, through whatever circumstances may apply, who have been incapable of developing such ideas.

And especially when that reward has been based on the labour of others.

[ibis]

The claim that a person's birth, upbringing, material circumstances etc simply determine what ideas they will have is counter to all available evidence.

For example...

[quote:1sipgjkh]The claim that accepting the value of ideas is exactly the same as accepting the primacy of birth doesn't logically follow at all.

I am not discussing the "value" of ideas. I am discusing the origin.`[/quote:1sipgjkh]

Well, I thought we were discussing whether ideas had value, and you were claiming they didn't by virtue of their origin.

That Africa "comes up with fewer ideas than other regions" is a bizarre claim. What measure is used? Patents? Nobel prizes?

Well, somewhat inaccurate ill admit. Industrial era technological developments to the present day shall we say.

No, no. That's an unbelievably bad measure! If Africa doesn't have an industrial society, it doesn't really have any need for industrial ideas. It would be better to measure how many ideas they have in Africa for solving their own specific problems (same for anywhere, really).

Aside from anything else, to make a racist comment on this, you need to show that "Africans" (depending on what one means by that), whether in Africa or not, have fewer ideas.

That one can step from "fewer ideas" to racism requires one to be a racist already.

Not really. Rewarding those with ideas is to discriminate against those, through whatever circumstances may apply, who have been incapable of developing such ideas.

And especially when that reward has been based on the labour of others.

So those who labour less, or are unwilling to labour at all, because they are "incapable of wanting to" through their upbringing and circumstances, are to be rewarded exactly the same as those who labour hardest?

[stringjack]

Highlights another problem - why not ask for 150 X when you probably really only need 100 X? If you have spares, you don't need to be so careful with them.

That's where I really think things are going to go off the rails (particularly when it comes to accurately pricing externalities, since people are going to have to report how much they value stuff like peace and quiet or art), but I'm interested to see whether the problems can be solved. There's a fairly well-developed literature on decision structures that elicit genuine preference profiles.