Why Socialism?

[Lazarillo]

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/Einstein.htm

Here is the text of an article written by Albert Einstein, who was actually a dedicated socialist, explaining why we need socialism. It is an interesting read by a brilliant man who truly cared about humanity.

It's kinda funny- we get Albert Einstein, the Neocons get Dubya the smirking chimp.

[Sparrowhawk]

People's Republic of China
Body Count: 73,237,000
1949-Present (57+ years and counting)

Union of Soviet Socialist Republics
Body Count: 58,627,000
1922-1991 (69 years)

Russian Soviet Federated Socialist Republic
Body Count: 3,284,000
1918-1922 (4 years)

Democratic People's Republic of Korea
Body Count: 3,163,000
1948-Present (58+ years and counting)

Cambodia
Body Count: 2,627,000
1975-1987 (12 years)

Democratic Republic of Afghanistan
Body Count: 1,750,000
1978-1992 (14 years)

Vietnam
Body Count: 1,670,000
1975-Present (30+ years and counting)

People's Democratic Republic of Ethiopia
Body Count: 1,343,610
1974-1991 (17 years)

Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia
Body Count: 1,072,000
1945-1992 (47 years)

The list goes on, but you get the idea. At this point you're probably red-faced and angry at my lumping communisms together with socialism, but I don't really care.

(1) Both communism and socialism have an end utopian goal of complete equality in their ideal state.

(2) Both communism and socialism employ the practice of centralized economic managing and income redistribution as their primary means of working toward this so called "equality."

(3) Both communism and socialism experience the same types of problems in accomplishing this economic managing - the unintended side effect.

(4) Both socialism and communism are structured in such a way that an inherent inequality develops from the administrative top of the power structure for such is necessary to enforce compliance. Such compliance must be mandated in a socialist system due to the fact that human nature creates skepticism, opposition to the control of others, and a desire for free will.

(5) In both systems when this unequal elite inevitably emerges, the concentration of widespread power in a single space must intensify. This naturally attracts individuals seeking widespread power, or it corrupts individuals already in power with the lure of the same widespread power.

(6) As a result of the government structures found in both systems, the intensification of power and control on the upper level necessarily translates into the usurpation of remaining personal freedoms during its expansion.

"The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries." - Winston Churchill

More info: http://www.mega.nu/ampp/communism2.html

[Sparrowhawk]

It's kinda funny- we get Albert Einstein, the Neocons get Dubya the smirking chimp.

And I assume you mean "we" as in you and your fellow socialist sympathizers. So you've really only mentioned socialists (a historically invalid political ideaology) and neo-cons (also an invalid political ideaology.) I'm not sure where this leaves people with functioning brains - libertarians (though crazy), Randians (though obsessed), Misesians (the capitalist economic vanguard), Constitutionalists, individualists, anarcho-capitalists (like myself), anti-statists, traditional (i.e., Lincoln-)conservatives, classical (i.e., Jeffersonian-) liberals, free-market anarchists, etc etc. Things aren't just socialist on one side, neocon warhawks on the other. Most people inherently understand the limitations and failures of these extremes, save of course those zealots who refuse to see the dismal failures of both of them throughout human history. Socialism is a worldwide failure. Neoconservativsm, though newer, is no less a failure in its current form or in its historical roots.

[Lazarillo]

Our of curtesy, I'd appreciate if you quote where you get your figure. Though you will notice that democratic socialist governments like Spain and Sweden aren't on the list. Its amazing how small their body count is.

States like Russia and Yugoslavia do not properly count because they were not true socialist states, rather there was no check on power, so people like Tito and Stalin were able to turn their states into totalitarian states. However, this is not true socialism, and scandanavia has shown that it isn't always the case.

While the Scandanavian states might not be quite as powerful economically, as far as quality of life goes, they resoundly beat america, one of the most capitalistic states in the first world. That is what matters most in a state- how well everyone has their basic needs met.

http://www.aftenposten.no/english/local ... 642788.ece
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0778562.html

[Lazarillo]

I've always wanted to ask an anarcho-capitalist this, but they seem to be in short supply.

In an anarcho-capitalist state, who will protect you from the power of the corporations?

[Sparrowhawk]

Our of curtesy, I'd appreciate if you quote where you get your figure. Though you will notice that democratic socialist governments like Spain and Sweden aren't on the list. Its amazing how small their body count is.

www.digitalsurvivors.com

I left out all countries without over a million dead - there were too many to list.

States like Russia and Yugoslavia do not properly count because they were not true socialist states, rather there was no check on power, so people like Tito and Stalin were able to turn their states into totalitarian states.

This is the same argument always made by socialists. Any socialistic government that fails is simply deemed "not truly socialist" and ignored.

While the Scandanavian states might not be quite as powerful economically, as far as quality of life goes, they resoundly beat america, one of the most capitalistic states in the first world.

The Scandanavian states also have extremely high unemployment rates, the highest taxes in the world, poorly funded and over-stretched healthcare resources, stagnant economies and low per capita incomes. You go on to say that 'That is what matters most in a state- how well everyone has their basic needs met' - what matters most in a state is how well the state protects individuals from infringements on their rights. The state has no other purpose but that. Just because Scandinavian states have modern luxuries and free healthcare seems enough for people to assume it's a success of socialism. I don't care how high people want to tout the 'quality of life' in Scandinavia - I sure as hell wouldn't be moving there any time soon, not when I can live in America - even if the 'quality of life' is allegedly so much lower here than there. I doubt many other people who've had the privilege of living here would disagree; and those who would most assuredly have never been to a socialist nation.

As to your question: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism. Google is your friend.

Edit: As to the topic in general, your mention of Einstein as a socialist doesn't really pique much interest for me. Brilliant scientists are often eccentric and not exactly the most in touch with reality, and Einstein is a great example of this. I wouldn't go to anyone else with a question about quantum physics, but then again, that was what he did. Trusting a physical science specialist about economic philosophy makes about as much sense as asking the Pope for economic philosophy (as pointed out in a previous thread in this forum.)

Scandinavian states, also, had a brilliant economic run prior to their socialist takeover as well, which accounts for the vast majority of their current economic power (which, subsequent to their reversal of free-market tactics, has PLUMMETED) - a fact that cannot be ignored even by the most zealous of Euro-socialist lovers.

2ND Edit: Also, it really irks me to hear people talk about how the government should 'meet everyone's basic needs'. What a load of crap. Men were not mean to "have their needs met" by some all-powerful force, be it god or government. The apathy inherent to any socialist populous is a direct result of this ridiculous notion. The very idea that people should have their needs met by someone else instead of themselves is so ludicrous as to only be useful in masking alterior motives, as demonstrated throughout history's socialist regimes.

[Lazarillo]

Sparrowhawk, it isn't as bad as you make it sound. If they were so horrible, they wouldn't be ranking so high on "quality-of-life" studies. You can throw around whatever terms you like, but the facts speak for themselves.

[Sparrowhawk]

Well, since you've failed to actually show these quality of life studies, I'll do it for you.

http://www.economist.com/media/pdf/QUALITY_OF_LIFE.pdf

Not much of a gap between the U.S. and the 2 major Scandinavian nations - not much at all. With the extreme variance between what different individuals value as part of "quality" - not only in personal terms but also in cultural and social contexts - these "quality of life" studies are excercises in futility. They either try to do far too little (as with the Mercer study) or far too much (as with the more commonly touted Economist study). I mean, taking into account average church membership as a factor in quality of life? You want people to take this kind of study seriously as a barometer of "quality of life?" Probably not. The only determinant factor, the only bar that a state must meet is it's ability to protect the rights of its citizens - their rights, not their "needs" as defined by some nebulous beaurocracy; and your failure to address any of the points I've brought up in response to your call for "why socialism' is really quite telling as far as the typical socialist response goes.

[jotabe]

Well, sparrowhawk, i have had the "priviledge" of living in the USA for a few months... and certainly i much rather live in Spain.
Public healthcare (please, don't say free: there is nothing free in this world, and the taxes i pay show it so) being one of those reasons.
Gun ban being another.
And throw lower tax pressure in, as well.

Btw, it is not a "nebulous bureaucracy" who determines which services are essential that the state provides. Afaik, the Scandinavian countries are still democracies, so it is the people who decides that. Who decides how to use the tax money. Exactly the same that happens in US, if i am not wrong.

[Yebra]

So close to cheering you on...yet not.

You're completely right in bashing the argument there has never been a 'pure' form of communism and hence it's untested. The Soviet Union and China were arguably the purest form of Marxism implemented and the problems they faced are inherent in the manifesto. Countries that were less marxist like Cuba did far better out of it (relatively). However then you go off on your normal spout. I'm just going to take this one thing that really annoyed me:

Also, it really irks me to hear people talk about how the government should 'meet everyone's basic needs'. What a load of crap. Men were not mean to "have their needs met" by some all-powerful force, be it god or government. The apathy inherent to any socialist populous is a direct result of this ridiculous notion. The very idea that people should have their needs met by someone else instead of themselves is so ludicrous as to only be useful in masking alterior motives, as demonstrated throughout history's socialist regimes.

What a load of crap, Men were not 'meant' for anything, so any discussion of what men are and aren't meant for is just a way for you to make your argument seem as if it follows from natural principles. The opposite is true, the idea of the community supporting the less able is one of the common trend of human societies reaching back through time.

The very idea that people should have their needs met by someone else instead of themselves is so ludicrous as to only be useful in masking alterior motives, as demonstrated throughout history's socialist regimes.

I really don't know where to start with this. I assure you, no one would talk about this issue if there weren't a great many people who are incapable of meeting their own needs. I assume you're aware of this so I'm worried the implication that you're so cynical that any talk of a compassionate society that cares for the less able leads you to scream 'alterior motive'. The fact that the idea of someone helping someone else out is repulsive to you doesn't change the fact is that there are many people who are incapable of meeting their own needs and if government doesn't meet their needs, no one is going to.

Let's change the word government to 'society'. Society should be so that as many people as possible are capable of meeting their basic means themselves and if people are incapable of that then YES, governments should intervene to help. Nobody likes the idea, those that are unable to support themselves hate that fact, and we should change society as much as we can so that everyone can support themselves and meet their own needs. We have to face the situation that there are billions of people incapable of meeting their own needs and so compassionate, altruistic societies will create a governments that meets their needs whilst working for ways for them to help themselves. Without some aspects of socialism in place to work against the enormous inequalities it would generate unchecked, Capitalism is an unmitigated evil.

[Sparrowhawk]

Below was my original response; but after thinking about it for awhile, I realized there were some things I wanted to add and change, and I feel that my initial reaction was based more on my instinctive distaste for collectivism rather than on an objective assessment of your statements. I leave the original as is in the interest of full disclosure, but more is below that.

There are BILLIONS of people incapable of satisfying their own basic needs? Well golly, I didn't realize.

Blah blah blah, altruism blah blah blah. What a horseload.

"Capitalism is an unmitigated evil." Lol. Every good thing you have in your life probably has a direct root in the capitalistic philosophy that reigned during the most prosperous times in every civilized nation in the world. Every success, every product, good and service exists today because of the idea of a free market with the free exchange of goods and ideas. Governmental interference of every kind (usually with some kind of "altruistic" motive) has created inflation, national debt, stagnant money-hole programs, wars and stifled trade. Maybe not the capitalism that comes to your mind when you see the word - the cronyistic monopoly-loving gilded age bullshit which more closely resembles a government-controlled market (socialism anyone?) but the capitalism of laissez-faire, which is the source and root of all prosperity in the western world. There's no hope for you at all if you can't see the truth in the never-before-seen-in-human-history prosperity that capitalism and its ideals have given the modern world. You need an education in Hayek, Mises, Adam Smith, Hume, etc.

Once more, with feeling: "The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries."

To be perfectly honest with you, I don't think we should be arguing. I doubt that our beliefs are that different; a prima facie would seem to suggest otherwise, but that is more a product of perception than of substance.

Men were not 'meant' for anything, so any discussion of what men are and aren't meant for is just a way for you to make your argument seem as if it follows from natural principles. The opposite is true, the idea of the community supporting the less able is one of the common trend of human societies reaching back through time.

We will disagree here. At first, you dispute the idea that people were "meant" for anything, but you then go on to state that there ARE things we were meant to do - like support the less able. Which is it? Are we or aren't we?

Regardless, the historical assessment is wholly inaccurate. History shows us time and again that the less able have been trampled upon by a myriad of forces; the machinations of evolution, the sovereignty of monarchs, the rule of the elite, etc. The "idea" of communities supporting the less able is a very recent one (though this in no way affects its legitimacy as a philosophy; age is only a number). That concept, though new in the human consciousness, has a point - individuals (and I, as an individualist) aren't nearly as successful and couldn't possibly be if it weren't for communities, states and nations full of other people. There is a certain amount of "collective capital" that we all share, made up of but much more than just the sum of human achievement and accomplishment; our science, medicine, technology and understanding of the universe are some of just the external components of the wealth of humanity we all share.

We have to face the situation that there are billions of people incapable of meeting their own needs and so compassionate, altruistic societies will create a governments that meets their needs whilst working for ways for them to help themselves.

We will disagree on some of that as well. While there are certainly billions of people in the world going without their basic necessities, this is not caused by capitalism nor is solvable with socialism. The vast majority of those who go to bed hungry, sick and with no roof over their heads in this world live in third-world hovels run by autocrats, warlords or tribal leaders. The bounty that free-markets and democratic governments have showered upon the first-world nations hasn't touched these relics of the past. They exist in collectivist squalor. What these nations of people need, what, for example, Africa needs, is stable democratic governments that are constitutionally limited from interfering the lives and choices of their citizens, so that their populous is free to pursue the success they all have a human right to strive for.

The benefits of science, medicine and technology are flowering in the first world because of the leaps made from the pre-Rennaissance to the Industrial era (not coincidentally, the same period in which laissez-faire was all the rage) - people were free to pursue success in any and all fields - in botany, biology, transportation, medicine, whatever. Humans have needs; luckily, humans are capable of creating ways to meet those needs. And because of our shared collective capital, anything/idea/process/technique that can fulfill the needs of one human can be known and available to all - of course, we don't live in a fantastical utopia, so those things which fulfill our needs don't appear from thin air. It takes work and human brainpower to create them. Those that do that work expect, and rightfully so, to be given what they feel is worth the work they've done. And thus, anyone who wants what they have created must have the means to obtain it - i.e., they must work to create something of their own. In our times, this means providing a good or service to others in exchange (whatever job you do, you are providing a good or service to others). Obviously, in order to make sure that these exchanges are fair we've instituted the concept of money to take the place of direct exchange, so that values are even and the same for all involved (this is the argument for a one world currency, a concept most other capitalists scoff at but I personally am willing to think about.) So anyone who wants to meet their own needs can and should. The only problem we run into is that, as we've been discussing, there are people "incapable" of providing any (or enough) of a good or service to obtain the most basic of their needs.

I know I came off as cynical (because I am), but just because I'm a believer in capitalism in no way means I think we should ignore those people. I myself have received the benefits of what some might call 'socalist' governmental policies. I grew up, well, poor. Not because my parents were incapable of providing for the family, but because even working as much as they could, there wasn't enough money to for a family with several children. We received food aid from the state government tribe, which I'll be honest, really helped us get through some tough financial times when I was very young. What would have been more helpful though, would have been if they'd been helping with my father's college education (paying for college while working several jobs to pay for it and for the family's needs was why we needed the food aid in the first place!) In the end, my parents weren't incapable of providing for the needs of the family (they could have eschewed education in favor of working more), but that their "pursuit of happiness" needed a little financial backing in order to bear fruit in the future (which, luckily it has.) Certainly what we're talking about means simply those within our own nation (those beyond it are subject to the powers of their own governments, and will not experience change lest they destroy those oppressive governments). My objection is that it is not within the scope of our government (if we are mutually talking about the U.S.) to forcibly redistribute their taxed income to "meet the needs" of the incapable. Not only is the government shown to be incompetent in matters of money, and therefore certainly not the best option to be in charge of something so important as people's basic human needs, but they simply do not have the authority, vested in them by the people through the Constitution, to do such.

If that is to change (first and foremost the incompetency of our politicians), I am very wary of those so-called socialists who would take advantage of such an idea in such a way as has been done to, say, France and Germany. The spirit of capitalism is a absolute necessity in order for science, medicine, technology and business to continue to flourish and thrive (and in an increasingly globalized market, these successess will continue to overflow into many other nations, examples seen in the many industries and businesses with overseas branches, factories, etc. These not only bring wealth and money to the American business in question, but to those working in the other countries and the communities that receive tax monies from them.)

Right now, unfortunately, we still live in an age of finite resources. There will never be a utopia, of any stripe, while we struggle with our limited resources and waste them as we do today (yes, I'm a semi-conservationalist capitalist. It's not an oxymoron.) Luckily, science and technology allow us to wield greater and greater benefits from smaller and smaller amounts of resources, which is why it is in such fields our attentions must be focused. Certainly, we must do something in order to care for those incapable of doing so for themselves, but with the understanding that we do indeed have limited resources with which to do so. We can only do so much, and no matter how much we think we can "tax the rich" for the money, that isn't the solution.

First off, less taxes creates more money in society. The less taxes, the more money spent and invested. The more money spent and invested, the more money in the economy. The more money in the economy, the more jobs. The more jobs, the more workers. The more workers, the more people capable of providing for themselves (step 1 to solving the problem). The more people working, the more people paying taxes (the less we have to tax in order to be able to help the less forunate). Second, there must be clear and dinstinctive boundaries for what constitutes a person's inability to provide for themselves; this has its own set of problems of course, as a poor educational infrastructure leaves many without the education necessary. That is another area of focus that must be attended to before we can truly provide for those incapable of doing so on their own. Not to mention the egregious government interference into free trade which hamstring businesses from growth, which creates the jobs necessary for people to make their own money (not to mention whatever product or service the businesses provide, limiting who can obtain those, etc etc. )

All in all, it's such a complicated issue that we must step back and look at what our real enemy is and where our real salvation lies. And when doing so, it is plain to see (for me at least) that socialism and its concepts of government-controlled markets, healthcare and infrastructure is the enemy, and that capialisms' concepts of free-markets, free exchange of goods, services and ideas is the salvation. While we pursue that salvation of course, you are right that we must tend to those who cannot strive with us in its pursuit. I realize that was all quite long-winded, but I wanted to cover as much as was possible to show that in the end, we both want the same thing. I just think I have a better understanding of what we need to do in order to reach that goal.

[John Locke]

True socialism is a very good reform, but destructive, hijacked socialism (that was present in the Soviet Republics and China) is just the opposite. In a society where class is not decided by anything but personal choice would be great!
Government paying for the necessities of life would help millions of the downtrodden.

For <u>true</u> socialism, I have no objections.

[Bryan Christopher Sawyer]

I see. We get the old "oh but that wasn't [i]true socialism[/i]" Just like that wasn't true Christianity during the aggressive wars of the Crusades, or the terrorism of 911 wasn't true Islam.

Look at the wrongs done in the name of these ideologies. Of course, that doesn't render them all defunct in and of itself, but death in the name of any faith (including socialism) definitely opens the door for criticism.

The Theory of Kin selection (C<br) shows that altruism is more common among those most related to one another. Socialism is intellectually inept. In fact, it seems to work best in an ethno-state.

In fact this forced altruism, this 'tyranny of virtue' only causes more resentment from those who've strived, who've fulfilled their duty to the human race to be the best, not to raise up the weakest humans found, but to replace them with better and stronger through an increased rate of procreation among those who are most successful.

[elfprince13]

I see. We get the old "oh but that wasn't true socialism" Just like that wasn't true Christianity during the aggressive wars of the Crusades, or the terrorism of 911 wasn't true Islam.

Actually, none of those are true examples of the ideologies they're supposed to represent, so even though you were trying to be sarcastic, your statement is a lot more accurate when taken at face value. I am definitely not a socialist, but I also belief the stated end-goals of socialism are a very noble thing, which is why it appeals to so many people, but those goals will never be achieved through regulation, it has to be done out of genuine desire to help others. Ironically most of the communist regimes of the last century have violently persecuted Christians--one of the few groups of people who actually might have been able to make socialism work, out of a genuine willingness to give up their own earnings to help those in need (the society of the early church is one of the few examples of a working communal society in all of history, and it was entirely voluntary). The rest of the population tends to be resentful of the government taking their hard earned wages and giving them out to other people and will sit back and just wait for the hand outs that everyone else gets. The saying used by Romanians who lived under Ceausescu's rule is "We pretend to work and the government pretends to pay us."

[lyons24000]

Elfprince,

I cannot entirely agree with you. While I do not doubt that there are some sincere Christians who truly attempt to follow the example of the first-century Christians, I cannot agree that very many of the are as eager to "spread the wealth" as made them out to.

First-century Christians are different then the Christians today. It is almost impossible to look at the Christians in the Bible and compare them to many of the Christians that worship now. Just because they made it work does not mean that it will work today. The Mormon's tried to make it work in modern times and it just didn't. (Sorry Dave, no disrespect!)

Also, no form of government will ever work: "I well know, O Jehovah, that to earthling man his way does not belong. It does not belong to man who is walking even to direct his step." (Jeremiah 10:23) Man cannot govern themselves. That was not what God intended for mankind to do. We were supposed to live under His rule. We do not have the ability to successfully "direct [our] step."

Further, people who do try to be genuine in their endeavor to solve the problems we face in life are hindered by this: "The heart is more treacherous than anything else and is desperate. Who can know it?" (Jeremiah 17:9) Too, with man "every inclination of the thoughts of his heart [is] only bad all the time." (Genesis 6:5) We cannot help that. It is beyond our ability to fix the problem. We only have to rely on God and His Son, Jesus, to get us out of this mess. And they are going to do it.

"The God of heaven will set up a kingdom that will never be brought to ruin. And the kingdom itself will not be passed on to any other people. It will crush and put an end to all these kingdoms, and it itself will stand to times indefinite." (Daniel 2:44) Jesus Christ is going to be king of that Kingdom. (Daniel 7:13-14) That is what he told us to pray for in the Model Prayer. (Matthew 6:9-10) Socialism will never work. Communism, democracy, dictatorship, or human-led theocracies. Only the Theocracy by God, the "kingdom of the heavens", is going to save us. (Matthew 3:2) No one, not even well-meaning Christians, can make any form of government work. We need God's government.

[zeroguy]

I see. We get the old "oh but that wasn't true socialism" Just like that wasn't true Christianity during the aggressive wars of the Crusades, or the terrorism of 911 wasn't true Islam.

Actually, none of those are true examples of the ideologies they're supposed to represent, so even though you were trying to be sarcastic, your statement is a lot more accurate when taken at face value.

I don't think he was disagreeing with the notion that they aren't true to their ideologies. The argument is that it doesn't matter; the rise of one tends to lead to such... uh, I'll call them misinterpretations. Just saying "oh, they did it wrong; we won't make that mistake this time" doesn't help. If it gains (more) prevalence, those things will happen (more/again), most likely.

[elfprince13]

Elfprince,

I cannot entirely agree with you. While I do not doubt that there are some sincere Christians who truly attempt to follow the example of the first-century Christians, I cannot agree that very many of the are as eager to "spread the wealth" as made them out to.

First-century Christians are different then the Christians today. It is almost impossible to look at the Christians in the Bible and compare them to many of the Christians that worship now. Just because they made it work does not mean that it will work today. The Mormon's tried to make it work in modern times and it just didn't. (Sorry Dave, no disrespect!)

People who truly practice the Christian faith will do what they feel called by God to do, and I have a really hard time seeing that not including a call to help those in less fortunate situations.

Also, no form of government will ever work: "I well know, O Jehovah, that to earthling man his way does not belong. It does not belong to man who is walking even to direct his step." (Jeremiah 10:23) Man cannot govern themselves. That was not what God intended for mankind to do. We were supposed to live under His rule. We do not have the ability to successfully "direct [our] step."

Which is why I'm a libertarian

[Bryan Christopher Sawyer]

Elfprince!

First I gotta say, I love the name.

Secondly, I should thank zeroguy for clarifying for me. Yes, as zeroguy stated my IS that it is irrelevant whether or not it was true Christianity. And what is true socialism. It's unfortunate that a talk about socialism has gone off on a tangent of religious debate, and I guess that's probably my fault.

But I see that we are both libertarians, (I'm registered right here in Philadelphia, City of Brotherly Love!..........yeah we don't really win elections here) so I think we both agree that the end means of socialism are a noble ideal, and I'm sure we both agree that we should try to achieve those means independently, without the government taking our money and giving it to others.

You know what a great argument against socialism is? Ron Paul's book "Revolution". At least, I think so anyway.

I suppose the point that I was trying to make was that socialism, though it may seem an enlightened idea, isn't necessarily natural. We tend to be more altruistic to those like us. The best way to help our fellow man is to allow the citizens to choose how to help for themselves, and not have it imposed upon them by the government.

If someone had cystic fibrosis, they may only want to contribute to cystic fibrosis charities, and not cancer or homeless. And whether that is right or wrong, and no matter what it says in any holy book, I think they should have the choice to do so.

[lyons24000]

People who truly practice the Christian faith will do what they feel called by God to do, and I have a really hard time seeing that not including a call to help those in less fortunate situations.

I agree with you. If you read my last post you'd see that people who are truly trying to live up to the principles laid out in the Bible will try to help. I just said that there are fewer of those then you might think.

[elfprince13]

Elfprince!

First I gotta say, I love the name.

thanks

You know what a great argument against socialism is? Ron Paul's book "Revolution". At least, I think so anyway.

I haven't read it yet, but guess who I wrote-in in the general election?

I suppose the point that I was trying to make was that socialism, though it may seem an enlightened idea, isn't necessarily natural. We tend to be more altruistic to those like us. The best way to help our fellow man is to allow the citizens to choose how to help for themselves, and not have it imposed upon them by the government.

again, I agree. Did you see this article? http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123664427493678121.html


@lyons24000: people who don't try to live up to those principles aren't really Christians then are they? But this should be in a different topic anyway.

[Syphon the Sun]

For the record, asking a physicist why one economic theory is better than another is pretty silly. Albert Einstein may have been a genius when it comes to physics, but that certainly doesn't mean his opinion on anything outside his field is going to be valid. When talking about economic topics, I'll take the opinions of Adam Smith, Milton Friedman, Justice Posner, or any Chicago-trained economist over Einstein any day of the week. Asking Einstein questions about economics is akin to asking George Stigler about quantum mechanics. Let people stay in their respective fields.

Anyway, as to the actual topic, socialism is as bad in theory as it is in practice. It may be a nice thought -- oh, what if somebody else could take care of me! -- but it's completely counter-productive to human nature, creativity, the desire to succeed, and the concept of personal responsibility. I've talked about this at great length before, so unless someone really wants to talk about it, I'll just say the biggest reason socialism is poorly thought-out is that it forces inefficiencies into the market.


And if you want to see its failure in practice, look at its history in Latin America. For example, in Chile, Salvador Allende nationalized much of the private industry, started the redistribution of land, etc. After two years of socialist policies, inflation rose from 35% to 150%, government debt amassed while revenue was severely depleted, the GDP was seeing negative growth, exports fell by a quarter, imports rose by more than a quarter, and Chileans couldn't get basic food items (such as beans, flour, rice, and sugar) from the supermarket and were forced to buy them on the black market, as the cost of such goods rose by 120% in a single month.

Then the legislature called on Augusto Pinochet to remove Allende from power and Pinochet appointed the Chicago Boys, implementing policies based on their free-market ideas. Inflation decreased to less than ten percent, exports rose, government spending decreased, much of the nation's industry was privatized, the per capita income grew by rates unheard of in the rest of Latin America, unemployment went up, then back down when more capitalist policies were implemented, the infant mortality rate decreased while life expectancy increased, the list goes on and on.

Capitalism made Chile the success it is today. There's a reason it has been an economic leader in Latin America for decades, despite few natural resources, and it certainly isn't because socialism works.

[jotabe]

Chicago-trained economist

This is quite the reason i dislike modern free-market economists, and why Economy, as a science, fails.

The disdain for mathematics is absurd. Without mathematics you can't make accurate predictions (or at least attempt to). Without accurate predictions, you can't really say that your predictions were fulfilled or not (yeah, you predicted a crisis, but you couldn't predict its duration, its severity, not even when it would start... furthermore you had been predicting a crisis ever since you came out of college, so your predictions are pretty irrelevant).

I understand that human behaviour can't be modelled, because it depends on psychological components... but what the Austrian school is doing is that, precisely: modelling the economic behaviour of humans, just without numbers.
In any case, the behaviour of individual humans is completely irrelevant for a hypothetic economic science. What matters is the statistical behaviour of a huge amount of humans. And that certainly can and will be modelled.

Psychological school is akin to doing the weather forecast by watching the clouds. Yes, you will be "right"... very roughly. You might even be more accurate than the most primitive computational weather models. But this kind of forecast is highly dependent on individual insight, instinct and clairvoyance, more than on the method. And if you reject that mathematization will surpass your skills, you are doing a poor service to your own field.

Sometimes i feel that many of the psychological school members are simply people who became economists to feel self-righteous about being overpaid, but who do not feel they should put any actual effort. Despite they could greatly help to the development of the economic science.

Of course, if reliable modelizations of the economy were to be developed, they would be out of business.
Not only them, but all the economy and business colleges... because the true economic science would be developed in the colleges of mathematics and physics (where they are currently being developed, btw).

Does this means that i trust Einstein judgements on economy more than Friedman's? No, not really. Einstein had no training in economy, while Friedman had some. Some knowledge is always better than no knowledge at all.
And while socialism is a bad, bad idea, because it kills private initiative and individual intelligence, this shouldn't be used as a blanket statement against any and every policy that could be called "socialist". Because maybe the majority of people thinks that some things are better, and more efficient, if we all chip in and provide some services generally.

The dichotomy between socialism and free market is the same as between top-down and adaptive systems. Top-down approach is a bad idea, because, despite everything will go according to a plan, if this plan is bad, or circumstances change, it will collapse like a giant with mud feet. But adaptive systems with intelligence within, can be overtaken and become top-down (an unregulated market will become controlled by huge monopolies same as societies with a vacuum of power become oligarchies, federations become empires, etc.).

[Syphon the Sun]

Jota, I'm not really quite sure what you're trying to get at.


The Chicago school doesn't disdain math, they simply believe that trying to understand the economy without an understanding of human activity is laughable. I do think that there is a very large distinction to be made there.

And you go on to whine about how they need to use statistical data to create models and blah blah blah. Guess what? They do. Hell, Friedman developed the process of sequential sampling! The entire school of thought is based on using using objective, empirical studies to prove their theories. They don't disregard math, or statistics, or any other wild claim you seem to be making. The problem, I think, is that you're complaining about something you don't really know about, so you're complaining about things that simply aren't true.

Sorry, but I'll take the boys from Chicago any day of the week. I'll take the Economics department that has more Nobel Prize winners and John Bates Clark medalists than any other. I'll take the department whose theories have been implemented into the real world and turned s***** economies around.

You go ahead and enjoy new mathematical models ignoring the human aspect and make wild accusations about a school of thought you clearly know nothing about, but as for me, I'll be over here watching the market become more inefficient through unnecessary regulation.

[Azarel]

Probably not my most helpful post but, for the info, Spains body count would be around the 500,000+ mark, which, to be honest, is too big to be referred to as amazingly small.

[Yebra]

Syphon, presumably when you talk about 'unnecessary regulation' you accept there's an amount of regulation that really should be there? Like, more than there was before the s*** hit the fan?

[Syphon the Sun]

Syphon, presumably when you talk about 'unnecessary regulation' you accept there's an amount of regulation that really should be there? Like, more than there was before the s*** hit the fan?

I presume you're talking about the current situation when you say "s*** hit the fan." In which case: no, because it wasn't deregulation that caused the crisis, but rather an abundance of wrong-headed regulation.

[Yebra]

Whatever, the argument that the failure to regulate problems with the housing bubble plays an important part in the crisis seems fairly convincing to me - I’m aware of the other side of the argument but the fact you seem to live in a world where the military dictatorship of Pinochet was as a success story means I’m not really in a mood to take you seriously. Your cheerful skip over the less savoury aspects of Chilean history reminds me of the Marxists I’ve talked to who are still in denial about the USSR’s human rights record. I couldn’t help but notice in your rush to show Chile’s collapse demonstrates the failure of socialism you seemed to skip over the fact that the CIA was spending millions actively funding a breakdown of the country and it’s more than a little misleading to leave the description of the military coup at “the legislature called on Augusto Pinochet to remove Allende from power” which, whilst true, hides the coup’s brutal nature and the speed at the new regime resorted to murder and torture to deal with its opponents and maintain control. The only reason your precious reforms were able to get anywhere is because the political opposition kept mysteriously vanishing.

The reason the per capita income rose amazingly is because the first round of ‘shock therapy’ involved measures that caused the unemployment rate to double. The economic ‘miracle’ is simply the recovery from this shock, talking about high growth rates hides the fact that the Chicago boys lowered the baseline at the beginning - of course they had amazing growth! In long term outlook is less encouraging, between ‘72 and ‘87, GNP per capita fell 6.5% and the total GDP growth between ‘70 and ‘89 works out 1.8 to 2 percent a year, less than other South American countries. If we travel back to the fanciful world know as ‘reality’, wages were getting considerably worse, the minimum wage earned had fell by almost half from the start to end of the eighties and the poverty rate by 1989 was 41.7%. In the meantime the percentage of the national income taken by the richest 10% had risen to 46.8%, resulting in the worst income inequality in South America. If you want to see what sheer, unchecked free-market capitalism gets up to when there’s none of that awkward democracy getting in the way, look at Chile under Pinochet. Anyone interested in seeing more of exactly what made up the “Chilean Miracle” I pulled most of my stats from this article but I’ve seen them in other places before (In particular, Naomi Klein’s ‘Shock Doctrine’ is fantastic on the subject and puts it in a wider context of horror).

---

Your dismissal of socialism as “oh, what if somebody else could take care of me!” and utterly incompatible with human nature seems a little off. We are essentially social creatures and the idea that there are things we tackle together as a society seems pretty basic to me. There are times when using the government to centrally run services is genuinely more efficient and allows greater accoutability than privately run competition (garbage collection comes to mind), but even if it weren’t I can’t help but feel there are times it’s better to have a little humanity than run an efficient market. But I suppose that’s the advantage of growing up in a country where something basic like public health care is seen as a guarantee by all political parties and the world keeps failing to collapse as a result. Socialism isn’t universally victorious here (and nor should it be), but it is a natural part of the public conversation and that strikes me as far more healthy than the terror the word seems to invoke in the States.

[Syphon the Sun]

It is a nice sounding fiction to blame the housing crisis on the elimination of regulation; if that were the case, we could just restore all of those regulations and everything would be peachy, again, right? But alas, it's simply not true. There has been very little deregulation in the past decade and most of the"deregulatory" reforms of the past two decades helped mitigate the damages of the current crisis, rather than cause it.

It simply wasn't deregulation that caused this mess, but rather it was wrongheaded regulation (Sarbanes-Oxkley, GSEs being allowed to accept subprime loans without any real oversight, allowing GSEs to keep as capital about a fourth of what they'd be required to keep if they were in the private sector, setting quotas for essentially how many subprime loans banks were required to make and how much they were lending to high risk investors, etc.).

As far as Chilean history goes, I'm glad you'll find any excuse to plug your ears with your fingers and scream "la la la!"

"Well, you don't talk about X, even though your entire point is about Y, so I don't have to listen to anything you say! Woo for me!"

Great. Don't take me seriously; don't respond to me at all, if you want. Really, it's hard to imagine I would care too terribly deeply if that were to happen. You don't exactly have a good track record of making me want to continue a discussion, mostly because you have a tendency to a) not read the posts before you start responding and b) throw a fit and stomp out when I don't feel like taking to thread off-topic and engage in a discussion of every issue you feel like discussing, many of which aren't really relevant to the topic at hand.

Yes, I didn't talk about soccer stadiums of socialists that were disappeared when Pinochet took power because, guess what, it's not relevant to the economic effects I was discussing. Believe it or not, "bad people" can have good ideas and "good people" can have bad ideas. To insist on some sort of false dichotomy wherein you're evil and all of your policies are bad or good and all of your policies are good is more than a little suspect.

Yes, the CIA funneled about six million dollars to Allende detractors. However, to pretend that the money was sent to fund a "breakdown of the county" is beyond ridiculous. But I guess you didn't bother actually finding out what the money was sent for or how it was used; you simply believe that if the CIA gives people, it's meant to destroy a country. It was mostly used for political resistance against Allende's unconstitutional ascension to power: funding rallies and protests for anti-Allende groups, funding television stations, radio stations, and newspapers that opposed Allende, etc.

As far as my description as to why Pinochet, who had been reluctant to stage a coup, disposed Allende, I don't see how anything I said was misleading. The legislature and judiciary called on him to dispose of Allende. He did. The fact that he saw his ascension to power as a military objective rather than a political one, which caused him to get rid of any enemies (by exile or imprisonment) he had, is all aftermath and highly irrelevant to what I was actually talking about. But then, you don't care, because you're just trying to find some magical reason that you can dismiss anything you disagree with without having to justify yourself. The point was never that Pinochet was a great leader, or that he was the nicest guy around; it was that Allende was a f***-up and Chileans had enough of it that they asked the military to step in, at which point the military instituted economic reform that, while harmful at first (because that's what letting a market fail does at first), allowed Chile to actually prosper. Pinochet's political suppression isn't really a necessary issue for that topic; in fact, the strangest bit of all is that a military dictatorship supported the free market at all (which will usually lead to political freedom).

As far as your interpretation of the economic results of the reform go: you're terribly, terribly mistaken. Simple "recovery" from a shock would have rebounded the levels back to the pre-shock level, not create a constant, higher rate of increase and while the unemployment rate did go up (which, you know, I mentioned), it also went back down below pre-Allende levels after more free market principles were implemented. The disasters of the early 80s are largely attributable to the failing Chilean banking industry tied to the rising US dollar. And you talk about how wages were getting worse, but don't address the fact that the value of those wages had increased considerably, as prices of goods and inflation dropped considerably. And when Pinochet stepped down, what did the government do? They implemented more free market reforms and again, the economy boomed.

At any rate, I'm probably done with this thread, as you've already indicated you're just looking for an excuse to dismiss anything I say and the best excuse you could muster is that I didn't talk about human rights issues in a discussion of the economy.

[Yebra]

It’s quite clear we’re working from different versions of history so I agree any discussion is pointless, but here I go anyway.

I can see why you think discussing the political aspects of Chile would be a tangent but it’s not: the economics in Chile can’t be separated from the political - ‘shock treatment’ simply has far too high a human cost to be accepted in a democracy. During the induced recession 74% of the average worker’s wages went to just buying bread (compared to 17% under Allende, which would also have bought milk and bus fare). Besides the rocketing unemployment, 60% of the population could not afford the minimum protein and food energy needed per day, malnourishment amongst children led to many leaving the educational systems and an upturn in infant mortality. No democracy would have tolerated this level of human suffering for an untested theory; if Pinochet hadn’t cracked down on even tiny gatherings in public the riots would have dwarfed any of the protests against Allende. Ignoring for a moment the question of the eventual outcome, unrestrained economic ‘shock treatment’ requires a repressive government apparatus to complete its goals. It’s (understandably) long been a hallmark of the Chicago School to try and distance itself from the horrific regimes that have implemented its ideas most completely, but a division between the economic and the political can’t be justified when implementing one is dependent on the other. Looking at the relationship the other way round it’s not strange at all that military dictatorships went in for free markets in a big way - doing so guarantees the support of powerful countries (US aid returned immediately) and foreign interests that are more than willing to prop up a regime with loans to maintain access to the new markets.

I'm aware of how the CIA's money was spent and if I’m reading you right, you're arguing the CIA was just doing the honourable thing in funding opposition to Allende’s unconstitutional regime. I’d be fine with this (funding domestic opposition to anti-democratic forces seems a reasonable use of intervention) if it wasn’t for the fact that this began prior to Allende taking office and before he had the chance to do anything unconstitutional. There were discussions with the US Chilean ambassador on how to stop President-elect Allende taking office in the first place and Nixon’s orders to the CIA director to “Make the economy scream [to] prevent Allende from coming to power or to unseat him" doesn’t really seem that ambiguous. This naturally wasn’t the only factor, and I’m not saying the US was the main player behind the Coup (as Kissinger put it, “We didn't do it. I mean we helped them….created the conditions as great as possible"), my original problem was with your description of the failure of socialism as the most obvious cause of Allende’s failure when the existence of an active campaign to make him fail from before he even took office also deserves consideration there.

[Laura]

I've been reading this discussion for more than an hour and have learned some things along the way and have agreed with less than half. Right now I will take issue only with a statement that only the early church was successful at practicing socialism. I'm sure that socialism is not practicle on a nation wide basis. It is being done successfully in small communities. Do a search for "intentional communities". There are hundreds or maybe thousands of these small communities, not all christian, that share housing, income, duties, care for each other.
Till here only, more when I'm not so sleepy.

[Azarel]

Laura, that's true, I've actually been part of such a small community for two years.

[Syphon the Sun]

I just wanted to let you know that I will be responding to this thread in the coming weeks, but I've got a lot on my plate right now, with the semester coming to a close and having to apply to the local firms for the summer. But I'm not ignoring you and I'll post a response as soon as I have the time to sit down and actually write.

[Crazy Tom: C Toon]

Sparrowhawk, it isn't as bad as you make it sound. If they were so horrible, they wouldn't be ranking so high on "quality-of-life" studies. You can throw around whatever terms you like, but the facts speak for themselves.

I know this was posted a long time ago, but I wanted to comment on how ludicrous this assertion is. Governments like the ones in communist China, Cuba, and Venezuela create their own evidence and publish it to make their country seem better. China talks about the clean air that it and its citizens enjoy while... well most of us know what Bejing is like. Chavez and his tyrranical ruling class are nothing but a bunch of liars. Please show me ONE instance in history where communism has succeeded. Communism is simply the next step of socialism, so don't try that one either.