Where Socialism wins out

Post Reply New Topic

Capitalism forces the majority of people to place the interests of the boss over themselves. Don't like the cooperative you work at? You can switch jobs instantly without the threat of starvation. No need to do any pointless ass kissing. Libertarian socialism frees and empowers the individual. Capitalism herds people into invisible cages like cattle because they were not granted the same privliges.

but the vast vast majority will never be one of the "few" or "the one" so,if they acted rationally, they would have little interest in a Pyramid scheme . So how is that altruism?

+1

explain the existence of labor unions.

ruveyn

Explain the government helping to break labor unions.

Labor Unions exist.

A recent court decision in Wisconsin has restored the right of collective bargaining to state workers.


If workers are acting in the interests of the bosses explain why there are labor unions.

Explain why workers quit one job to get another and better job.

Eplain why workers try to get the highest wage they can.

You should not answer a question with a question.

ruveyn

They exist to help workers protect their wages and working conditions. Public employees unions wield considerably more power and influence since their wages come from taxpayer money.

In any case, workers joined in a labor union strive to advance their own interests, not the interests of their employers. That is the point of my question.

ruveyn

The fact that a certain political outcome (defined here as "fairer distribution of wealth" and "democratic rule workplace" - I'm guessing a Libertarian wouldn't consider those positive outcomes) may be in the self-interest of a very large group does not necessarily mean that the outcome will actually be provided. It's called the "Free rider problem" ( the application of the Prisoner's Dilemma to large groups). The result is, however, that it is unlikely for selfish persons acting on their own volition to achieve such a political outcome, as it will usually be in their interest to reap the benefits of cooperation while not cooperating themselves. Thus, altruism becomes a necessity for socialism. Considering that at least two Nobel prizes in economics have been awarded for the study of this problem - Nash (theoretical) & Ostrom (empirical) - I shall elaborate no further on this topic... (except by proclaiming that Mancur Olson deserved the prize for his studies as well).

I stand corrected, however, on one crucial point. I wrote that altruism is crucial for a socialist economy. This is of course pure balderdash, for which I must shamefully apologize. What I should have said was that altruism is crucial for a socialist economy, which is at the same time democratic.

Altruism is, of course, not necessary when one can rely on time-tested tools such as violence, abductions, torture, "political re-education", pogroms, etc. (source: reality). Old Nick stares at me sternly from his shelf due to the fact that I omitted these essential policy tools in my original post.



... A rock cannot fly... Mother cannot fly... Thus, mother is a rock...

Well, since that wasn't the most informative reply (except to any Danes present), let's try another approach.

While Social Darwinism is truly not a science, I am somewhat shocked that one would put evolutionary psychology in the same category.

Allow me to consult my "Handbook of Psychopathy". In doing so, I am *not* implying that socialism is somehow more inclined towards antisocial behaviour than other ideologies - it just happens to be a book that is (1) primarily written by psychologists and (2) draws heavily upon the evolutionary/genetic (is there even a difference?) branches of psychology. In the chapter on "Genetic and environmental influences on Psychopathy and Antisocial Behavior" the book refers to scientific articles (among others, of course) from: Nature, Science, and PNAS, who are ranked 1st, 2nd and 5th among all scientific journals, (in that order), on their combined impact factor. Am I to believe - notwithstanding the general criticism of the politics of publication - that these journals are pseudoscientific?

While there are of course theoretical (how to identify the cognitice niche in which modern humans evolved), methodological (do twin studies provide sufficient rigour to differentiate between genetic and environmental factors?) and empirical (how the f.... do we measure this sh.. anyway?) problems, referring to evolutionary psychology as a pseudoscience is flat out wrong. It can be defended from a purely ideological perspective (do I sense Stephen Jay Gould lurking in the shadows?), but certainly not from a scientific one. If science makes certain ideologies look utopic and unrealistic, the ideology - not the science - should be blamed...

In fact, I find it ironic that evolutionary psychology is getting attacked on WP, of all places in the observable universe. Would it be better with the schools in psychology who believe that autism is caused by a mother hating her child? Sorry for my intolerance, but I tend to stick with the unity of sciences.... (straw man alert).

But back to the point, the proces of treating altruism and mutual aid as the same thing makes very little sense. When I first name-dropped Robert Trivers, i did so with the intention of pointing out that a lot of apparently altruistic behaviour may in fact be selfish - If there are gains to cooperation - and the free rider problem can be solved, somehow - even an as*hole will choose to cooperate.

I recommend Trivers' seminal 1971 article - The best I have ever read...

http://www.cdnresearch.net/pubs/others/ ... _recip.pdf

He reaches the conclusion that altruism is indeed possible from an evolutionary perspective, but that it must be reciprocal (the altruistic act must result in a reward which matches or exceeds the risk from being altruistic).

That's why I wrote that individual selection does not leave a lot of room for altruism.





http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_disorder
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sickle-cel ... e#Genetics

My Wiki-Fu is stronger than yours! ... sorry, couldn't help it .

Oh, and when I use the term "individual selection" I am using it as an opposite to "group selection"...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_selection

I know that trained biologists would probably point out, that selection at the level of the gene would be more appropriate... My razor is probably not as sharp as Occam's.

Summary: Socialism might face a slight problem when it comes to human nature.

Postscript: Is altruism even good? Mandeville believed it would adversely affect productivity and Old Nick thought it better to be feared than loved.

And if capitalists could completely get their way, unions would be done away with. RushKing's point, as I understand it, is that allowing them to do so (that is, even more than they do and have) would force the worker to capitulate to the interests of the employer (again, that is, even more than they do and have), which are likely to be at odds with the interests of the worker.

One could also make the point that unions allow capitalism to trundle on. That the brutality of 'naked' capitalism could bring about a much more unpleasant situation for the capitalist.

Ah, thanks for the clarification. I figured that, but I was tired when posting last night and wasn't sure.

Funny, only not really, how 'the problem of evil' has given way to 'the problem of altruism'.

Given human beings are varied and multifaceted and complex and often self-contradictary, any political system is going to have problems. The point then becomes what system best meets our needs, what system is most just.

Re:


But once we're out of the lab, and extrapolating and theorising and riffing on what some verified fact means, ideology and science can easily become blurred. And what's more, when such scientific theorising comes up against lived experience, it's the theorising that must give way.

Which is to say, human selfishness abounds. But to suppose it overdetermines everything is necessary only if you already look at it that way. There is much non-selfishness, and decency, and kindness, and even altruism. To suppose these things are a veneer or such only leads one to wonder how they became so in the first place. It is, indeed, multiplying beyond necessity.

Last edited by Hopper on 15 Sep 2012, 6:46 am, edited 1 time in total.

there is the point of view that altruism isinherently in our nature, the evidence?
it exists in modern times, evolution favoured it to some extent.

in my eyes its a tad simplistic but the core concept is valid enough, that is if we look at it from a purely biological viewpoint.
in essence we as humans have an extrordinary ability to adjust to our surroundings due to the nature of our conscoiusness, should biology even be an excuse?

what that means for ideology in my opinion is that no single ideology will work on its own and no single combination will work over an indefinate time period.

Yes, it is. For that matter, it's a problem every country faces.

As for labor unions, they were actually illegal in the early United States. Strikes were forbidden. Later, after unionization was legalized (after much struggle from below), capitalist and government persecution of unions followed.

I'm curious, ruveyn, as to your stance on the Marikana mine massacre in South Africa and the resulting unrest.

One can see what happens when one starts going up against the economic sphere of society. The government in South Africa has more or less flipped and is attacking everybody. So much for "democracy."

Many of the things Marx addressed concerning issues of capitalism still exist. They won't be wiped away until capitalism is wiped away.

IMHO, central planning through workers' councils is both an economic necessity and timely more then ever.

I had not thought about it much. S.A. is somewhat behind in mine safety. The workers should be active in promoting mine safety. After all, it is there skin that is at risk.

ruveyn

The problem with the US is that the people there though that extremely cheap gas, extremely low taxes and extremely high salaries were gonna last forever--stuff that they got from capitalism.



Yes, WERE illegal. Few countries in Europe have more labour rights than the US do today, especially after employment agencies took over the blue collar jobs in Europe.



Is it worth it to wipe out a few problems if this causes many more problems? Even in an economic recession, Americans and Europeans have it pretty well.

Even capitalist countries led by grade A as*holes (eg. pre-revolution Cuba or Chile during Pinochet) experienced a significant economic growth. All socialism has ever done is to spread the misery evenly amoung the workers and would-have-been middle-class.



Worker's councils do not work. The Soviets in the USSR were no more than tools led by oligarchs who were loyal to Lenin and Stalin--to give people a false sense of democracy and hope. When the cult of persona surrounding the dictators was high enough, they were abolished as they were simply no longer needed.

The negative feedback control mechanisms built into market economies will shift to new technologies as gas and oil price themselves out of competition. In the market place the quest is profit.

You will notice that when whale oil ran out because whales were being killed off at a ferocious rate, the quest for profit brought Col. Drake to Pennsylvanian. Thus was born the petroleum industry, just in time to substitute kerosine for whale oil.
It wasn't the governments that found a replacement for whale oil, it was capitalists seeking adventure and profit. And it wasn't governments that replaced oil lamps with electric lights. It was the likes of Thomas Edison seeking profit.

Eventually the hens will come home to roost and drop turds on the hydrocarbon based technologies. Count on it.

ruveyn