Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:30, 13 December 2006

Because of their length, the previous discussions on this page have been archived. If further archiving is needed, see Misplaced Pages:How to archive a talk page.

Archives
Archive 1 (Jan 30, 2006 to Apr 30, 2006) Archive 2 (May 01, 2006 to Aug 15, 2006)

Anti-socialism redirect

Would someone with an account create a redirect from Anti-socialism to this page please.--207.230.48.22 02:09, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Recent controversy

Vision Thing, it appears that we have a small controversy on our hands, and I propose to discuss it here. As far as I can see, the objects of this controversy are as follows:

• You wish to remove the following paragraph:

Another argument put forward by certain socialists relies on a different view of human psychology, a view of motives as depending more on the specifics of nurture and education than on an underlying genetic cause. In this context they might claim that the need for material incentives is only the result of the indoctrination of children in the present capitalist society, and that the nurturing of children in a future socialist society will lead to a more altruistic mindset with no need for personal incentives. Critics argue that there is no evidence for this theory and that much of human drives and motivations are genetically hardcoded.

I see no reason for such a removal. Libertarian socialists and anarcho-communists often argue that material greed is socially constructed, while anti-socialists typically argue that material greed is natural. Why remove all mention of this debated point?

• You wish to remove the sentence "However, empirical evidence shows no statistical correlation between a nation's wealth and the degree of inequality in that nation", even though it is supported by sources. Granted, one of those links is broken now, but it worked at the time when it was added (see above). It pointed to a paper by economists Torsten Persson and Guido Tabellini. There is also a potential third source for that sentence (Günther Rehme, who wrote in a February 2006 paper, "there is no clear functional relationship between growth and measured income inequality").
• You insist on including the phrase "once you begin to understand" in the Hayek quote. I don't see the point. If some author said "socialists smell funny, and socialism is bad because X, Y and Z", there would be no reason to include his ad hominem about socialists when quoting his opinion on X, Y and Z.
• Finally, I divided the criticisms of Communist states in two paragraphs: Generic criticisms first, death statistics second. The reason for that is because you seemed so intent on keeping a detailed description of the death statistics, even though they belong in criticisms of communism. I conceded that to you; but now I ask you to keep the two paragraphs separate, so as to not give the readers the impression that all criticisms of Communist states are related to the death statistics. That is simply not true. -- Nikodemos 00:15, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

The main problem with socialism, is not that it fails to "reward" productivity. When you talk of "incentives", you are viewing people as "employees" or "subjects" of the state, who need to be rewarded for a job well done, so as to get them to work harder.

The criticism goes way beyond that. Our declaration of independence, for example, states that each person is born free, and that they are a free agent. it follows that they have a right to own that which they have worked for. Those who decide to work harder, should have a right to own more. If someone decides to work hard and go to college, while another person decides to take the easy route and work as a waiter, it isn't even remotely fair that they would have the same social status. socialism short circuits the law of sowing and reaping. Those who make bad financial decisions in their lifes, do not have to pay the concequences for their mistakes. And that is the biggest problem with socialism. Dullfig 00:38, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

How about that fact that socialism would not allow me to own my own business? They are against private ownership of the means of production. I have a major problem with that. Why should the state be allowed to seize my business? Working Poor 03:38, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

"it follows that they have a right to own that which they have worked for" Um, that's a tenet of socialism - the right to the full value of your labour, not what your boss decides he'd like to pay you. --Nema Fakei 17:00, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

You seem to be confused: If I work and work and save my money, and want to buy a milling machine so I can start a business, that would be owning the means of production, a big no-no. But machines are merely the embodiment of thought and work, why can I not own one, just like a television set? and why can I not pay someone else to operate it? Dullfig 21:27, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

This is not the place to have a personal argument about socialism, but, in any case, the reason why you cannot own the means of production is because private property in general is illegitimate. There is no logical basis for a "right" to private property. And no, the Declaration of Independence does not explicitly support such a right, but even if it did, you'd still need a better argument than "it's true because Jefferson said so". By the way, since when is physical labour the "easy way" while going to college is the "hard way"? If I had a choice between doing an exhausting, menial, boring job, or going to college, I would always choose college. Money would not even be an issue. -- Nikodemos 09:24, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok, before you roll your eyes, consider this: private property is a direct corollary to the right to life. If you search in the woods for a nice, straight stick, then fashion a stone point for it, and make yourself a swell spear that can be used for hunting, you have an absolute right to declare that spear yours, as you need it to excercise your right to life. If some one were to take your spear, your chances of surviving would be diminished, and the other guys opportunity of surviving would be increased, with out him doing anything to deserve it. All private property helps you exercise your right to life, that is the basis for property rights. Dullfig 17:04, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

A man lost in the woods with no tools and no way to return to human society is a dead man. (unless he happens to be a trained survival expert, but then his training would be the result of his life within human society) Except in very rare cases, a human being cannot survive outside human society. We are born weak and utterly dependent on others for our survival. We are social animals. We need society in order to live; therefore, talking about an individual right to life outside human society is nonsense. What you need in order to have a right to life is not property, but other human beings willing to work together with you. What kind of prey do you plan to hunt on your own with a single spear? You'd be better off picking fruits; hunting is a social activity (the kinds of tools that allow you to be an effective individual hunter - such as guns - are products of society).

In any case, you seem to be confusing private property with the simple existence of tools. An object does not necessarily have to be yours in order for you to use it. To hunt, you need a spear. Whether it's your speak or the tribe's spear is irrelevant. Keep in mind that the concept of property refers to relationships between human beings. What does it mean to say that a spear is "yours"? It means that no one else may take it and use it without your permission. Thus, when you say that an object is "yours", you're talking about the relationship between you and other humans who may wish to use that object. If there are no other humans around, property is a moot point. -- Nikodemos 08:48, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Saying that man cannot live alone doesn't change anything. What if you lived in a tribe, and you expended your own (limited, irreplaceable) time in making a spear, and then someone else in the tribe says "that's nice, i think I'll take that, I need to go hunting"? You worked for it, you get to keep it. This whole notion of "the spear belongs to the tribe" will inevitably lead to people not pulling their own weight, and getting the rewards without doing the work. We are hard-wired for minimum effort (it conserves energy during famine) and we tend to go with the easy way out. Private property is taylor-made for human nature. Dullfig 17:28, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

1) That paragraph consists of original research and weasel words ("in this context they might claim"???). If it is to be included, I ask for sources. Also, material incentives are not the only ones in capitalist society, there are also nonmaterial incentives like prestige, desire to be better than others...

2) Second link might have been working at the time when it was added, but if its quality was the same as that of the first link (personal webpage), it can't be accepted because it's not a reliable source. Since we can't check the quality of the source and correctness of conclusions that were drawn from it, it can't be accepted as a valid source.

3) "once you begin to understand" is not ad hominem, but I'm willing to leave it out.

4) There is no need to divide it in two paragraphs, because in your version first paragraph already talks about number of deaths. -- Vision Thing -- 14:11, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

1) I believe the whole argument is that socialism could preserve or even enhance the non-material incentives while abolishing the material ones. Prestige and public recognition of one's success are perfectly compatible with equality of wealth.

2) Regarding the paper by Persson and Tabellini, my intention was not to use it to support the argument that inequality is harmful to growth, but the argument that inequality is not necessarily beneficial to growth. There is a big difference between the two. I trust you agree that the paper does indeed support the second argument.

3) Thank you. :)

4) Ok. I made a small tweak while keeping your one-paragraph version. -- Nikodemos 09:24, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

1) Socialist are not supporters of social egalitarianism also?

2) Sure, I also agree that inequality is not necessarily beneficial to growth. Are there some pro-capitalist theorists who think otherwise? I'm only aware of theorists who argue that implementation of different government measures for alleviation of inequality is harmful to growth. -- Vision Thing -- 20:33, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

1) I am not aware of any socialists who oppose individual prestige and public recognition of one's successes and merits.

2) The article currently states that "The critics of socialism often claim that a reduction of inequality would also reduce incentives, and therefore productivity and total wealth would be reduced in turn." But a reduction of inequality, in and of itself, does not have to be achieved through government intervention and does not necessarily reduce productivity and growth (on the contrary, statistics show that higher degrees of equality are correlated with higher GDPs - this may be because equality produces growth, or because growth produces equality, or because both growth and equality are promoted by the same policies). If there are indeed no capitalists who argue that a reduction in inequality will necessarily reduce growth, we should simply remove the sentence I quoted and be done with it. -- Nikodemos 05:23, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I found the paper by Persson and Tabellini . Their study found that inequality is harmful for growth, but not because inequality is harmful per se. They found that inequality is harmful for growth because it leads to government polices that do not protect property rights and do not allow full private appropriation of returns from investments. That means that this study can be used as a source for claim that socialist policies are harmful to growth, and not for claim that inequality is intrinsically harmful. -- Vision Thing -- 14:35, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

That paper is not verifiable, since you need a subscription to view it. 72.139.119.165 02:00, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

It was free two days ago, but still, need for subscription doesn't make it unverifiable. -- Vision Thing -- 17:13, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Anyway, the main problem with the paper is that is incorrect. It contradicts previous reaserch, see Economic_inequality#Economic_growth. It is also redundant, a more direct way would simply be to compare growth rates and government policy directly (see the IEF controversy). Third, it does not take into account distributive efficiency. Also, few countries developed under laziezz-faire capitalism, most had a "developmental state" of some kind (see Japan, South Korea, etc.) to promote development (incidentally, the Soviet Union experienced rapid growth in the 1930's and after World War 2). 72.139.119.165 01:47, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Basically, economic growth in lazzez-faire capitalist countries tends to be focused in a small group rather than the workers. Also, poor countries in Africa, etc. are poor mainly because the US and other countries keep them poor. For example, to get a loan from the world bank/IMF, countries need to privitize industry (along with other conditions). Then, US based corporations take over the countries economy and do not benefit the local people (see imperialism and neocolonialism). Also, the US often overthrows governments it does not like (like 1953 Iran and 1973 Chile). It also supported UNITA in Angola and RENAMO in Mozambique, which were right-wing capitalist movements supported by Aparthied South Africa. 72.139.119.165 01:59, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Also, socialism is not opposed to all private ownership (at least in most forms). Under socialism, small scale business and self employment are allowed. Also, even under communism, there can be some differences in Wealth (but not huge differences). The critique is usually only extended to large scale industry, important industry, etc., not small markets, shops, etc. 72.139.119.165 02:03, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, what I wanted to say was that under socialism, presonal property (ie. your own house) is allowed. This means that random people cnnot enter the house that someone can simply take the house, etc. What socialism is opposed to is private ownership of the means of priduction. 72.139.119.165 21:51, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Again, property is property. It's like saying, you don't think people should own blue socks, but red ones are ok. House, hammer, machine, these are just objects. The work embodied in them is what justifies ownership. What you are sugesting is incongruous. If I work for 100 days and build a house, I can keep it, but if I work 100 days and build my own milling machine, THAT I can't keep, because of an arbitrary classification of objects into "means of production" and "belongings". Therein lies the oppression of socialist regimes, in that you are subject to totaly arbitrary rules, and that you are prevented from deciding for yourself how you should live your life. And don't tell me that I can, because I can't. Not if I decide that I want to own a factory. Who are you to decide what I can and can't do? are you going to give back to me the years gone by if it turns out you were wrong? Dullfig 22:43, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

That is a silly statement. Private property either exists, or it doesn't. Private property does not come in sepparate "forms". Under the US constitution, the citizen is the sovereign, giving up certain rights in order to form a government. But the right to private property either is, or it is not. When the government starts saying "you can't own this, but you can own that", the citizen has ceased to be the sovereign, and is now a subject of the state, living at the pleasure of the state, and serving the state's needs and interests. Freedom, and limited private property, cannot co-exist. Dullfig 19:07, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

My response was a bit off-topic to Vision Things claim. The basic problem is as follows: socialist policies attempt to reduce wealth inequality. Now, if a country with high inequality introduces socialist policies, wealth inequality should go down. If the claim is correct, there is a positive corelation between wealth inequality and socialism (this means that countries with socialist policies have more inequality). Now that is an absurd claim. 72.139.119.165 21:08, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Consider two basic scenarios: 1) in a country with high inequality and growth rate socialist policies are introduced and both inequality and growth are reduced; 2) in a second country with high inequality and growth rate socialist polices are not introduced, and neither inequality and growth are reduced. Why would be absurd to claim that socialist polices hamper growth? -- Vision Thing -- 21:50, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I did not claim that was absurd, I said your argument was absurd. First, high growth has taken place under cretain socialist policies (ie. Sweeden (which is social democracy, but some more socialist countries also had high growth)). Second, the response I gave refuted your claim. Your claim was that high inequality causes socialist policies, which reduces growth, which makes countires with high inequality to be more poor. That claim has multiple problems, the most obvious of which is that countries with more inequality would have socialist policies. This means that there would be more inequality if there was more soiclaism, which would mean there is more inequality under a system that reduces inequality. Therefore, if your claim is correct, then reducing inequality would increase it, and that is a contradiction. 72.139.119.165 21:49, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't know how did you come to conclusion that there would be more inequality if there would be more socialism, and I'm not interested in giving lesions in logic and logical fallacies. -- Vision Thing -- 18:18, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I did not claim that, what you claimed above implied that. 72.139.119.165 19:52, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I love the inequality argument! Socialists love to dwell on the inequality. Let me ask you this: suppose there is a country where everyone makes $2.00 an hour, and there is another country where one percent of the population makes $1000.00 an hour, and the rest makes $4 an hour. Which country do you want to live in? It doesn't matter if there is inequality! the important thing is: how well off are the ones at the bottom! Dullfig 01:01, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. But then, socialism is based in envy, not rationality. Working Poor

Imaginary countries prove nothing. If there was a country where one percent of the population made $1000.00 an hour, and the rest made $4 an hour, what would happen if we redistributed wealth equally? Well, the one thing that is certain is that everyone would make $13.96 an hour - a massive improvement for 99% of the population. As for any other long-term effects, I don't know, since this example of yours is imaginary and not very detailed.

If you want to talk about real countries, I would like to kindly point out that those at the bottom are much better off in Sweden than in the United States. The poor (and sometimes even the rich) are better off in the countries with more equality. Note that the 5 most equal countries in the world right now are Denmark, Japan, Sweden, Belgium and the Czech Republic. By contrast, the most unequal are the Central African Republic, Sierra Leone, Botswana, Lesotho and Namibia. Pop quiz: Which of those sets of countries are overall richer? -- Nikodemos 08:40, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Capitalist usually argue for more economic freedom, not for more inequality, and researches in this area, like this one, did show that countries with more economic freedom have substantially higher per capita incomes and higher growth rates. They also showed that "The share of income earned by the poorest 10% of the population is unrelated to the degree of economic freedom in a nation." -- Vision Thing -- 20:33, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Then I guess that the article simply misrepresents the views of capitalists (there is a sentence claiming that capitalists support inequality; see above). We can remove that sentence and clear up the confusion. -- Nikodemos 08:48, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

The problem with socialist countries is that even if the lower class is doing ok, they have no upward mobility. Redistribution always works by taking from the top, and giving to the bottom. But any burden placed on businesses becomes a barrier to entry, preventing new people from becoming entrepreneurs. Get it? Because the record keeping requirements needed to prove you are paying your "fair share" are so burdensome, only big organizations can afford to hire the lawyers required to keep up with the red tape. If you place no burdens on businesses, sure, you're going to have inequality, but by the same token, it becomes possible for the little guy to set up his own business. Dullfig 02:49, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

The point of socialism is to eliminate the concept of private business altogether. Placing regulations and "red tape" on businesses is not a socialist policy. A socialist policy would be, for example, putting a factory under the control of its workers. When socialists say they support the "little guy", they are not talking about small businesses (which are not inherently better than big businesses). They are talking about the working class - those people who don't own any business. -- Nikodemos 08:48, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Believe me, I know what I'm talking about. Here in the US, they are now ramming ISO 9000 down everyone's throat. The requirements are so huge, you need a big organization to handle them. The days of the one man shop, where you could buy a milling machine and put it in your garage and start your own business are long gone. The only one screwed is the little guy. The big corporations will do just fine. So it just isn't enough to say you want to help the little guy, the policies have to actually help. Dullfig 02:49, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Again, the "little guy" is not the small business owner, but the worker who doesn't own any business. The days of the one man shop have been swept away by the advance of technology - the whole point of the industrial revolution was to eliminate small-scale production and replace it with large-scale mass production. I understand your concerns, but you are two hundred years too late. Industrial capitalism - just like industrial socialism or any other kind of industrial society - eliminates small shops and replaces them with large factories or firms. -- Nikodemos 08:48, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Boy, oh boy, oh boy! Where to start? I don't know your background, but sometimes you come accross as not knowing the first thing about capitalism; and I don't mean knowging what the left says about capitalism, but actually living it. When there are huge barriers to entry, the situation is such that the worker has no hope of ever improving his condition. But when setting up your own business becomes accessible even to the little guy, all of a sudden you have just as much of a chance to make it big as anyone else. New fortunes are constantly being made in the US. When I spoke of the "one man shop" I was refering specifically to one industry: the aerospace machine shop. The one man shop is not a myth, and it did not die with the industrial revolution. It is alive and well in the US. There is a reason so many people want to emigrate here. This is the one country where it does not matter your national origin, your social condition, or your economic status, you can start a business here and make it big. That is how true capitalism should work. Dullfig 18:14, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I take the following from page history. "Peter Self was arguing precisely against 'extreme equality', not the limited equality that he and other socialists support." That's Mihnea's comment. I'm frankly not familiar with Mr. Self's work (I'm not Selfish) but this leaves me scratching my head at the oddity of his turn of phrase. Either two quantities are equal or they are not. In the straightforward arithmetical sense of the term, one can never say that X and Y possess "limited equality." There is X=Y or there is the negation of that. If X>Y, then there are degrees to which it is greater, but that only establishes that "limited inequality" would make sense, not that its inverse does.

Self's language doesn't make a lot of sense applied to society either because, whatever exactly he meant to say, there must be more transparent ways of saying it. Does "limited equality" refer to a specific range in variation (in incomes, wealth, or life style) that will be allowed, and a prohibition on any variation outside of that range? Or does it mean that if certain conditions are lifted, we can reliably predict that a specific (narrower-than-present) range will come about spontaneously? or does it mean something else? Whatever. "Extreme equality" simply means "equality" sans phrase, and a criticism of the former is a criticism of the latter for that reason, though the adjective may serve some purpose in hiding that from (ahem) one's Self. --Christofurio 19:55, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Here is the full quote from Self: "Extreme equality overlooks the diversity of individual talents, tastes and needs, and save in a utopian society of unselfish individuals would entail strong coercion; but even short of this goal, there is the problem of giving reasonable recognition to different individual needs, tastes (for work or leisure) and talents. It is true therefore that beyond some point the pursuit of equality runs into controversial or contradictory criteria of need or merit." Self is arguing against the pursuit extreme equality because it requires "strong coercion." He's criticizing traditional socialism planned economy in favor of market socialism. I don't like that Nikodemos cuts down quotes and then editorializes on them, because he when he does it seems he always loses or changes the meaning. Working Poor 16:49, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Interesting quote, thanks. I was mostly making a pedantic quibble about Self's language. Feel free to ignore me and carry on. --Christofurio 17:06, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

The trouble with economic comparisons

A user has recently added a short paragraph about comparisons between socialist and capitalist countries, which I intend to remove. As an explanation for this removal, I give you the following reasons why most such comparisons are inherently inaccurate and generally useless:

1. Which countries were "socialist"? Which countries were "capitalist"? There is no agreement among self-described socialists regarding the list of countries that can be described as "socialist". Likewise, there are many libertarians who argue that the so-called "capitalist" countries are not capitalist at all, but mixed economies inspired by socialism. When you compare West Germany to East Germany, are you comparing capitalism to socialism, or are you comparing a social democratic welfare state to a Stalinist deformed workers' state?
2. What exactly are we comparing? Total GDP at a given point in time? GDP growth over a certain period? GNP? Some other economic performance indicator? Broad statements such as "the economy of country X performed better than the economy of country Y" give no information whatsoever.
3. Which countries are we comparing? We might compare East Germany with West Germany, or we might compare post-WW2 East Germany with pre-WW2 East Germany. Some would argue that it is more accurate to compare the economic performance of the same country under different economic systems than to compare different countries.

Besides, we should not give undue weight to the Marxist-Leninist version of "socialism". -- Nikodemos 23:03, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Marxist-Leninist version of socialism is the most prominent one.-- Vision Thing -- 21:24, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I think Nikodemos has a point: so what if the biggest country on earth (USSR) tried Marxist-leninist socialism and failed miserably, while putting several generations of russians through misery, the likes of which will never be seen by anyone outside Russia? So what if millions of people lived and died without ever knowing what true freedom is? It is important for us to not give undue weight to such a crackpot, fringe ideology as Marxism-Leninism. Lets find examples of countries where socialism is flourishing. Like Cuba, for example. No, wait, bad example. Ok, I know, I know: Vietnam. Oh, no, wait, their pretty bad too. HEEEY, I KNOW: CHINA!. Oh, wait, they're trying to go to a market econonmy... Man, it's hard to not give undue weight to that crackpot Marxist-Leninist fringe... Any ideas, anyone?

Dullfig 00:34, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

The "Ludwig von Mises, socialism should be regarded as a failure" paragraph is inaccurate and should be removed. It is an unfair comparison, because Russia started out poorer than the US, and this was true even before the revolution (in fact, Russia was poor under the tsar). 72.139.119.165 22:30, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

East Germany and West Germany started as a pile of rubble. Equal conditions, different outcome. Interesting, isn't it? What do you suppose the difference was?

Capitalism (and in those days it was the laissez-faire kind) took 13 backwater colonies in 1790, and in less than a century turned the US into an industrial powerhouse. The increase in GDP was astounding. Russia was communist long enough. Had communism worked, you would have already seen that the country was well on its way to being the proverbial "worker's paradise". Don't give me the "they didn't have enough time" line. No American under Capitalism was ever asked to "sacrifice themselves for future generations". Countless russians did, and for what?

We only get to live once. Period. When you die, you nevee rcome back. To ask a person to sacrifice their life, so that others (perhaps in the future) can live well, is a perverse notion. When judging a phylosophy, good intentions don't count. The outcome counts. It doesn't matter that communism is trying to do good. Like I have said elsewhere, Communism has condemned more humans to living miserable, empty lives than capitalism ever will.

Dullfig 23:30, 13 December 2006 (UTC)