4,747 Forum Posts by "Slizor"
No Slizor, it IS Socialism. It places a corporation, even if it is temporary, under the control of the state. Especially with GM. There you have the government taking effective control of the means of production. The government then began dictating how GM would operate and what lines it would get rid of and how many dealerships they would close.
The government temporarily owning stock (61%) in a company is nowhere close to the advocacy of controlling the means of production. You're not really advocating it, if you're going to take back whatever control you may exert. Also, see points below about "socialist acts" etc.
It is a classic action from bourgeois government - protect the rich. Any socialist worth his salt could have predicted that free market ideology would dominate economic policy until the point that it all started to go tits up.....and then the government would start to protect its failing businesses.
So according to your definition...that is socialism.
No, it is nowhere near according to my definition. I could restate my original objections (i.e. my characterisation of the bailouts as "the state owning part of privately-run companies that continue the exploitation of workers for profit") but I think my later points suffice.
Then there are the banks. But first a disclaimer: This is NOT about Obama...but Bush's policies. In 2008 you had the government talking about nationalizing banks. Now the term and of nationalization is a socialist term/act.
It is an act that socialists would undertake, but it, in itself, is not a socialist act. It is a policy that could be advocated by any number of economic theories.
Furthermore, SecTreas Henry Paulson gathered the heads of Wall Street's major banks and dictated that they will take bail-out funds. This dictate then extended to all banks. That is effectively the government taking control of a service industry's operations (the same thing as controlling means of production).
This is actually a more watered down version of what Socialists would do. They would nationalise the banks and then actually control them - that would be taking control of the means of production.
The stage in Marxist-Leninist theory intermediate between capitalism and communism, in which collective ownership of the economy under the dictatorship of the proletariat has not yet been successfully achieved.
Now this definition is a bit more fungible than controlling the means of production and not as simple. But it is also more correct. All socialism is, according to Marxist theory, is an intermediate stage between capitalism and communism. It is imperfect collectivism. Therefore anything that is more collectivistic than individualist is (at least) a move towards socialism.
Instead of my simple open definition (that is more correct because we are talking at a rather generalised level) you think that Socialist ideology should be defined according to Marxist ideology?
Furthermore, Marx is talking about socialism as a stage of history, not as a political movement. As such, the first "Communist" country was called the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. This, clearly, does not sit with any definitions of social democracy as they see socialism as a goal in itself. As such, it is advocates of forms of Social Democracy that we should be looking to for our definitions of socialism.
And lastly, you're thinking way too much in black and white (and grey.) It's not a case of economic systems being Free Market Capitalist or Socialist or Communist. There are a huge number of economic theories that adopt positions entirely of their own. A number of these (such as Keynesianism and Mercantalism/Economic Nationalism) occupy the middle ground between Free Market Capitalism and Socialism/Communism, and who would actually advocate the bailout of failing businesses. In fact, I would contend that the bailouts are a prime example of modern day economic nationalism.
On a small side note the phrase I was looking for for the definition of socialism is the "control of the commanding heights of the economy", not the control of the means of production. The means of production constitutes the entire economy, rather than just the heights. Doesn't affect the discussion much, but it needed clarifying.
If libraries, police, and postal services are not demanded on a free market, they wouldn't be supplied. Since the idea of them not being needed is absurd, on a free market they WOULD be supplied to the extent which they are demanded. Rather than the extent to which the caprices of state officials and progressives are willing to rob other people of their money to support a monopolistic system.
Actually they would be supplied to the extent that they were profitable....so say goodbye to police in poor rural areas.
Also say goodbye to any kind of road/rail/transport system. Because, let's face it, who's gonna pay for a road?
At 8/12/09 08:28 PM, michelinman wrote:At 8/12/09 07:33 PM, SevenSeize wrote: You could drink it with breakfast!Hell yeah! Nothing goes better to chase down a luther burger than a nice glass of bacon vodka.
Please tell me there are doughnut cheeseburgers.
I just need confirmation of the fact before I go to America in search of such wonderful culinary creations.
Read my other posts, I'm basically in the same potion as you with that. But a swiss army knife isn't a lock back and you have a reason to carry it around.
I have a lock-back 7' Swiis Army knife....bought it in Switzerland and went through (ferry) customs with it. It also has a saw and a gutting knife.......for all your hunting/living off the land/crazy libertarianism needs.
Now most of the posts on this thread can be argued using some form of (insane) logic but this is just plain wrong.
Bail Out Companies = SocialismUmmm...this is the very definition of socialism.
Fli=epic fail (-7.5 intellect points)
I mean....what!? Just because something doesn't count as free market Capitalism it doesn't mean it's "socialist". One (easy and well-used) definition of Socialism is the advocacy of the "control of the means of production". That is not "the state owning part of privately-run companies that continue the exploitation of workers for profit" or the "state paying money to save the investments of ridiculously rich people", it is the "control of the means of production". If a policy doesn't meet this fairly basic requirement then it shouldn't be considered Socialism.
Just because a policy doesn't match your definition of a concept you throw it into another pile without adequately defining (and understanding) the concept you are assigning it to.
PS: I'm not picking on you Mason, I just saw two posts that angered me and weren't by an idiot.
NAZI-ism was opposed to Democratic Socialism. This more of an inter-ideological schism rather than a fight between two opposing ideologies. In other words, Hitler and the NAZIs just had a different view of Socialism than most of Europe...but he (and the party) were still socialists.
Oh pur-lease. Quoting the rhetoric of the Nazis is one thing....but believing it!? Next we'll be saying that the Democratic People's Republic of Korea is just a "different (but valid) understanding of democracy".
The Nazi party, in its actions, supported Corporatism, reviled liberalism and reviled socialism. It was a third, extreme, way between the two main ideologies of the time, that drew upon populist propaganda at a time of worldwide economic crisis in order to gain a semi-legitimate power base.
Anyhows, I just popped into this thread to deliver this link http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/aug /11/nhs-united-states-republican-health
It's funny that Republicans don't seem to realise that attacking the NHS is just not done in this country. Sure, there's arguments about how to run it.........but outright attacks on the NHS is political suicide.
In conclusion, I ask God to help us champion His religion and continue jihad for His sake until we meet Him while He is satisfied with us. And He can do so. Praise be to Almighty God.
That's ambiguous at best - unless you consider the verb "champion" meaning to "forcefully instil across the world." Plus, that's way out of context considering stuff like
"These actions were carried out by the zealous sons of Islam in defence of their religion and in response to the order of their God and prophet, may God's peace and blessings be upon him. "
"Why should fear, killing, destruction, displacement, orphaning and widowing continue to be our lot, while security, stability and happiness be your lot?
This is unfair. It is time that we get even.
You will be killed just as you kill, and will be bombed just as you bomb. "
Since I don't read Urdu I have to use someone's article on an interview from an Urdu newspaper.
About the objectives of Lashkar-e-Islam, Mangal Bagh said: "Allah revealed the Koran, which was not sent for any one particular region of the world. It was revealed for all of humanity. We are out to spread Islam throughout the world."
This is a minor organisation that, on the very website you linked to, denies affliation with al Qaeda and the Taliban.
According to the paper, he said: "Our objective is to impart the teachings of the Koran. There are 180,000 mujahideen in our organization, and all these people work fi sabilillah [for the sake of Allah]. They receive no pay. They manage on their own."
Again, ambiguous. Impart does not mean force.
To think that bin Laden would really stop once US troops are out of Saudi Arabia would be foolish. If he knows he can extract concessions he will keep coming up with new reasons.
I don't think once US troops are out of Saudi Arabia bin Laden would stop. I imagine once US troops are out of Iraq, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, etc and an end to the Israel/Palestinian situation has occured would Islamic terrorism significantly die down.
Additionally Sayyid Qutb was a member of the Muslim Bortherhood, and a very influential member.
The Muslim Brotherhood is a political movement which condemned the 9/11 attacks.
At 2/14/09 12:23 AM, JoS wrote:At 2/13/09 07:48 PM, Slizor wrote: Care to venture a primary source against this? Y'know, some terrorist saying that their ultimate goal is the domination of Islam over the entire worldbin Laden and others cite Sayyid Qutb as their intellectual hero, the one who has shown them what the world should be like. If your not familiar with Sayyid Qutbs work, he believes very deeply that Sharia law is the only way for Islam to truly exist, and that every country should subscribe to its values or face damnation. He makes no secret of his distaste for western culture, its promiscuity and exhibitionism, as well as secular Arab governments.Linky.
That's not a primary source, nor does it come from a terrorist or does it say that the ultimate goal is the worldwide spread of Islam. It's not like quoting the Hamas Charter which says such things as
"The Islamic World is burning. It is incumbent upon each one of us to pour some water, little as it may be, with a view of extinguishing as much of the fire as he can, without awaiting action by the others. "
"As to the objectives: discarding the evil, crushing it and defeating it, so that truth may prevail, homelands revert [to their owners], calls for prayer be heard from their mosques, announcing the reinstitution of the Muslim state. Thus, people and things will revert to their true place. "
"Hamas has learned from these lessons and examples, that the current Zionist invasion had been preceded by a Crusader invasion from the West; and another one, the Tatars, from the East. And exactly as the Muslims had faced those invasions and planned their removal and defeat, they are able to face the Zionist invasion and defeat it. This will not be difficult for Allah if our intentions are pure and our determination is sincere; if the Muslims draw useful lessons from the experiences of the past, and extricate themselves for the vestiges of the [western] ideological onslaught; and if they follow the traditions of Islam."
Sounds that their aims are defensive and insular (in regard to the "Islamic world") to me.
It's really great to see such amazing critical thinking going on on this forum. I mean not one person has bought into the whole "terrorists are evil, the west is good" malarky....oh wait.
Of course, you're trying to apply logic to a person who is obviously not thinking rationally, so that's why they will never stop.
Being unable to discerne reason and reason not existing are two separate things. Also, assuming that one side of a conflict does not have legitimate reasons and does not think rationally is a way to perpetuate conflicts, not understand them. If anyone has Uni journal access there is this http://journals.cambridge.org/action/dis playAbstract;jsessionid=51FC7643D4510DF4 8016DC8E853C0DE8.tomcat1?fromPage=online &aid=173126
Bye-the-bye, I like how the argument that terrorists are not rational thinkers is advanced at the same time as the argument that they are motivated by a heavenly ten-foot cock and a few hundred virgins (i.e. that, within their assumptions, they are working as rational actors following an incentive.)
Troops in Saudi Arabia is not the reason. Terrorists with Al Quida and similar organizations are not out for some specific event or action. Their ultimate goal is the complete overthrow of western governments and secular governments, imposing Islamic rule across the globe, and nothing short of that will appease them. Do not be fooled into thinking that withdrawing troops from Saudi Arabia will end this.
I disagree about their ultimate goal. So does bin Laden
"The ruling to kill the Americans and their allies -- civilians and military -- is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it, in order to liberate the al-Aqsa Mosque and the holy mosque [Mecca] from their grip, and in order for their armies to move out of all the lands of Islam, defeated and unable to threaten any Muslim."
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/terrorism/in ternational/fatwa_1998.html
Care to venture a primary source against this? Y'know, some terrorist saying that their ultimate goal is the domination of Islam over the entire world
At 2/4/09 02:48 AM, homor wrote:At 2/4/09 12:51 AM, Bolo wrote: Without Bush, that orphanage wouldn't have a need to exist.thats complete crap and you fucking know it.
No, he's right - probably because he bothered to read the article instead of just spouting off.
"It was put up in the gardens of an Iraqi foundation that cares for children whose parents have died in the violence that engulfed the country after the US-led invasion of March 2003."
At 2/2/09 02:59 AM, qu3muchach0 wrote: wow... it's amazing. you're only 19 and you already have several degrees in political science! oh, you don't? then stfu... lol. :p
seriously... who else claims to be an expert in this? a word of advice: "lay off the pot and switch to shrooms."
I'm 22 and have two degrees in political science, does that count?
Basically, first, people have elections for the lower house (the lower house of Parliamentary systems is always the more powerful one; if you can think of an exception let me know); i.e. the House of Commons in England. Similar to the House of Reps, except both the legislative and executive branches are included in it.
Kind of. I can respect you're speaking broadly and that no-one bothered to try to teach me about Parliamentary systems in other countries, but I think there's some important points.
In a Parliamentary system your vote is for your constituency. So, living in the Sheffield Hallam constituency, if I voted it would be directly for one of the people standing in Sheffield Hallam. It is only indirectly, through the party of the person I voted for, that people vote for the ideological make-up of a government of the country. Once this has happened, and a party or a coalition has a majority, the executive is then formed from the House of Commons (with a few exceptions of people having been brought in from the House of Lords.)
So, what about semi-Presidential systems next week, eh?
I got 30. Got two wrong on the bit when I was meant to select reasons why the free market is by far the best system ever invented in the world ever.
Are the ISI trying to claim that Sputnik was American?
Of course it isn't pointless. It's just whether or not we will benefit from it. Why should we work against the spread of guns when areas with high gun ownership have the least crime?
Just done a tiny bit of digging on this (it's an oft repeated claim) and it doesn't look like a very strong argument. Most of the research that supports this idea either comes directly from one John R. Lott or is written by someone else whose research is based upon Lott's work. At the same time there is research which directly counters Lott's position that I managed to find with very little digging.
Continued.
You also seem to have a fairly neat little definition of what Communism is and what Communism isn't (and what a Communist is and what a Communist isn't.) Must a Communist associate themselves with Stalin or Mao?
You're tarred by association and must either play devil's advocate or stop insulting others for just not 'getting you' (because there must be ever so much to get).
If you desire to go hell for leather with an avowed Marxist I suggest you go and find one. You can then drive each other insane by grounding your views in historical "facts" and inserting beliefs in every nook and cranny.
No, they are your assumptions.I'll reppeat it once more for good measure: I'm attacking communism, not your own particular views as they are not relevant in a thread concerning traditional communist doctrine and how it is flawed.
Threads aren't limited and defined - these aren't debates on set topics. Anyhow, you responded to my views to begin with. If you wanted to "attack Communism" you could have just made a post laying out your theory of "instinctive acquisition" and how it counters Communist doctrine. At which point with your view fully elaborated on rather than coming on in drips and drabs and with words used to obscure points, I would have ripped it to shreds.
If you do not wish to debate my viewpoint, I suggest you don't try to debate me.
At 9/24/08 11:27 AM, Pontificate wrote:At 9/24/08 09:16 AM, Slizor wrote: Capitalism wasn't founded, it developed.It's a figure of speech you dolt.
A figure of speech that was vital to your point.
Not really. I don't really consider the USSR as a prime example of Communism, or even an example of my beliefs.You do love talking about your beliefs don't you? The hypocracy of accusing me of selectively chosing evidence and then discounting any opposing evidence simply because it is not germane with your personal world view is quite astonishing.
Not really. There are many avowed Communists who do not consider Stalinist or Maoism as the real thing, as Marx likely would have considering they both missed out on the Capitalist stage.
With a bit of luck, there are examples of that. However, there are far far more examples of people born into families at the top of the ladder staying at the top of the ladder.The point still holds that capitalism removes the very real block that existed beforehand; all that remains is impotent snobbery.
See below about economic mobility.
They have greater mobility because the markets are under artificial control; say what you wish about the soviet union if it wanted tractors by god it had tractors.
You missed the point. Economic mobility refers to the ability of an individual to move between economic classes.
No, -cracy comes from the Greek kratia, meaning rule. Democracy is literally demos (people) kratia (rule).I am well aware of its root, I tailored my explanation it to its more modern meaning.
No, you provided an imprecise definition then called my use a conceit. Don't try and bullshit me with your "more modern meaning".
Which was used in the metaphorical sense (personally I hold it to be a conceit here also) to suggest that prostitutes held considerable political influence.
But is not a system of government and thus invalidates your limited definition.
You replied to the semantics arguement and yet did not assert that meritocracy is a recognised system of economics; I wish you would stop accusing me of what you're most blatantly guilty of.
It's not a recognised system of economics, it's a feature of an economic system. Sorry if you did not understand that but the point was obvious.
Alternatively I assume most are American on this website because it is an America-based website populated mainly by Americans. Stop being peurile and casting rather unwitty aspersions against my character; either insult me with flair or be damned.
Oh please. I suppose you consider "you dolt" the height of wit.
No, it is an earnest attempt to assuage the situation.
If the US government believed in free market capitalism as they say they do (particularly in the WTO) then it is an earnest attempt to destroy the American economy.
Which is a branch of socialist economics.
No, it's a liberal branch of economics. Keynes was not a socialist.
I am using hyponymy as we are discussing the general merits/demerits of capitalism and communism.
You do like defining the debate don't you? (Seems to be the other thing you'll clearly define) I thought you were supposed to be attacking Communism and I defending it.
Which would apply soley to the workers: if the businesses that paid them had the incentive of competition the quality of products would have been of a higher standard regardless (not to mention the workers would leave to be employed by a fairer competitor).
Business owners also had the stick heavily applied. They were forced to fill unrealistic production quotas that required them to focus on numbers rather than quality.
Unless the people earning less than a pound are from another country (an issue already addressed) there exists opportunities to improve their lot. No system is flawless but I'd rather have one that allowed social mobility than one that did not.
I refer you back to the point on economic mobility.
You did in your ill-thought tirade against a 'meritocracy'. People are hired on their merits, 'tis true, but to suggest (as you did) that this was a bad thing was ridiculous.
No I didn't. Show me where.
Oh and you aren't reading it correctly then: it isn't 'shouldn't be is ridiculous' it is 'to argue that people should not be hired and paid depending upon their ability or the principle that in a competitive system those less able will fall shouldn't be' - 'is ridiculous'.
Clearly, instead of you getting on your high horse, claiming that people are reading things wrongly and condescendingly trying to explain your sentences, you need to learn how to punctuate.
You seem insistent on seeing fallacies where there are none. Guess that's just the scars of a public school education.I'd argue that the stubborn insistence that nothing you have said is remotely fallacious a much more public-school boy trait than simple analysis.
How very droll. Public school isn't really an option for me; I'm too old and I'm far too qualified for them to offer anything.
I'm unsure as to whether to correct you on that account; while it is highly edifying to hear you rant and rave about my percieved class there is also a tinge of that pathetic rebellious attitude that I find irritating in twelve year olds let alone my supposed elders.
I said nothing about your perceived class, I was talking about where you spend your daytimes based on your continued ignorant smugness.
I assume nothing; I was simply following your lead by throwing random vituperatives and hoping one lands.
You consider Bolshie insulting? I thought you were trying to be descriptive! Fucking hell you really are crap at insulting people.
I was well aware of the hypocisy, that's why I called it shameless.
Shame you're not aware of the hypocrisy in the rest of your post.
Some points have been cut from this because I'm not going to get into a three post response on repitions.
Yes, damn me and my observations on history and how Marx was incorrect in mostly everything he wrote.
We haven't even discussed Marx. We haven't even really discussed history. Mostly we've discussed human nature (or, as you insist on calling it to obscure your points "instinctive acquisition".
It is not a gross over generalisation to point at the history of human development and the necessary role acquisition plays in hunter-gatherer socieities and then state, quite comfortably, that a sense of ownership has played an integral role in the course of events.
It would still be a gross generalisation to point to "the whole of human history", but yes, apart from over-egging the role of acquisition in hunter-gatherer societies (who, by any standards, had few material possessions and lived fairly egalitarian lives) you could point to the "history of human development" and make that argument without much difficulty. It wouldn't really be saying much and would be very open to historical counter-examples, but you could manage it.
It is as hard-wired in to us as 'murder is bad'.
But you can't manage that. You've moved from a correlation to a cause. Where's the proof? On this vital point you've out on a limb of belief.
Furthermore, considering the many many murders that have occurred in wars/cannibal societies/everyday life I think your argument for "murder is bad" being hardwired into humans has many problems.
A point well made but you then assume that the two are mutually exclusive; I'd argue that society has arisen the way it has because of human nature.
And I would counter by pointing to the vast diversity in human societies prior to imperialism and globalisation (which have acted as forces of homogenisation.) Or I would point to your undefined Human Nature, get you to properly propound it and then criticise it fully.
Poorly defined? Consider the words 'an instinct for acquisition' and I believe your answers are satisfied. To spell it out: people want things. The easier it is to get things the better. People feel entitled to items they have acquired. People are willing to protect what they have acquired. An instinct cannot be 'satisfied' and so the urge to improve one's lot never ceases, merely differs from person to person on a continuum.
Yes, poorly defined. You've now provided some more information (it is variable and it is continuous) but it's still not well defined.
Anyhow, I think that "the urge to improve one's lot" is generated by a very superficial and modern reading of history. In fact, you do seem to project modern ideas about property on to your view of history
The theory of Tabula Rasa is flawed as it is discredited by instinctual urges; of which we have many.
Based on your usage of instinctual urges you appear to be saying little more than Tabula Rasa is flawed because you disagree with it.
I wasn't arguing that it isn't an example of the diversity of views, I'm stating that it is not an example of an arguement addressing instincts as it doesn't. This is the crux of your arguement; if you cannot prove that the discussion on human nature has ever disproved instinct then you cannot state to another person their views on an instinctual impulse are wrong due to the existance of an ongoing debate.
It's not the crux of my argument, it's the crux of the argument you think you have with me. You entered into a debate about human nature - the points were not your own. Now you try to meld what I have said in response to others to your argument. You're either confused or dishonest.
Anyhow, you've used "instinctual urges" and "human nature" interchangeably and it seems little more than an attempt to obscure the point. You're now asking for me to find a rebuttal to your particular phraseology in philosophy texts - that's insane, they will not have mentioned your views by the same name that you have.
It's not the flexibility though, is it? It's a debate on the origin of our behaviour but not the behaviour itself.
It is flexibility. It is a debate on how much (how flexible they are) people can depart from their "instinctual urges" (read: human nature) or if, in fact, any instinctual urges exist at all.
The burden of proof is yours; show me any of your 'greats' who reasonably and intelligently discussed whether people felt entitled to ownership.
Again, insanity. You require of me to find works of others that directly talk about your views. Such arrogance is astounding, you think that you've come up with an argument that everyone else has missed, that it is original and brilliant. It's not, it's a fudge and it has little evidence backing it up.
Have philosophers discussed if people are naturally greedy? Yes. Have they mentioned "whether people felt entitled to ownership" (which as you mention below, is the same as greed) specifically? No, I haven't encountered it.
This is so that you cannot exploit the negative connotations (and denotation, for that matter) of 'greed' to show how, deep down, we all just want to get along.
You've done that to obscure the point and forward your own little view.
I assumed you had as you are defending communism. How silly of me. This isn't particularly relevant to the topic at hand but I personally feel that land owners do provide a service to the economy, albeit a passive one, and without an incentive of profit one of the driving factors of development will be lost.
I asked about the mutualist view on property - Proudhon, "property is theft", etc. Not about landowners. And it is relevant.
That is exactly the same as I wrote but with thinly-vieled rationalisation and some pejoratives thrown in for good measure (that is, in your own personal style).
No, in yours my argument is an appeal to authority, in mine they are examples.
I'm not telling you what you are arguing, I am stating that your arguement is fallacious because it appeals to authority. There is a considerable difference between that and literally misinterpreting my point.
No, you're misinterpreting my point to make it fallacious.
Firstly you are in a thread defending communism attacking its detractors; this puts you on the 'pro-communism' table.
I am on a thread putting forward my own views, as everyone else was. That puts me firmly on the "Pro-Slizor" table.
If you want to argue your own particular views I suggest you make a topic discussing them (something you would enjoy, I'm sure).
A thread is not a set debate, it never has been and never will be. It's a point of discussion that generates responses that can go in any direction they choose.
Failing that at least define your own views before accusing others of doing the same. If you fail to percieve how an instinct to acquire property of your very own is incongruous with the concept of communal living or Marx's beliefs that people can change then you are quite beyond help.
It would come down to how much sway that instinct held over human behaviour - about how flexible human nature was. It would also come down to what we considered property, which is something Proudhon discusses and why I brought the point up.
Belief.Based upon historical observation.
Based on historical observation coloured by belief. Anyhow, there's an appalling argument - your view is based upon "historical observation". That could deployed in any argument, by anyone. What makes you so special?
Again, you're in a thread that is pro-communism and defending it.
Actually, I was criticising the weakness of the criticisms levelled at Communism. That doesn't mean I'm defending Communism.
Hahaha. Merits "and" perseverance - that's your get out clause. That people tend to be bound by the social class they were born in is due to a lack of "perseverance"...clearly.That's the principle capitalism is founded upon
Capitalism wasn't founded, it developed.
and the existance of the nomenklatura and party priveleges within Soviet Russia shows that it is more pervasive than you would seem to hope.
Not really. I don't really consider the USSR as a prime example of Communism, or even an example of my beliefs.
Oh and people are not bound by their class; someone with enough drive or talent can climb that greasiest of ladders.
With a bit of luck, there are examples of that. However, there are far far more examples of people born into families at the top of the ladder staying at the top of the ladder.
That some don't most likely arises from pressures within the family to conform or simple fatalism.
HAHAHA. Such belief in the system is really quite lamentable.
Sadly your argument has to become a lot better if its going to account for the fact that the social democratic systems of Northern Europe (Denmark, Norway, Sweden) have far greater economic mobility than the more free market countries like the US and UK.
I was talking about the economic system, not the government system. The confusion is yours.It isn't an economic system; much in the same way democracy isn't. The suffix 'cracy' means 'related to governance'.
No, -cracy comes from the Greek kratia, meaning rule. Democracy is literally demos (people) kratia (rule). With a number of examples the -cracy words do refer to types of government, but they are not confined to only describing systems of government. Take, for example, pornocracy, which refers to the influence of prostitutes on the papal court in the 10th century.
Now if we can please move on from your attempt to score points with semantics to the actual issues at hand.
Firstly, not my government.My apologies; after awhile I find one assumes everyone else is American.
You really need to get out if all your human contact is with Americans on the internet.
Secondly, it is not a socialist principle to nationalise only those private businesses that are failing - providing help for those capitalist gamblers that were losing their money. It is certainly not up my street.They had to nationalise the ones that failed or the economy would have seriously suffered.
That is free market capitalism. To not take the good with the bad is to reveal their lack of belief in the market and their bare faced hypocrisy when arguing for a global free market.
but governmental interferance is a socialist principle whether you believe a shadowy cabal of bankers rules the world or no.
Government intervention in the economy is also Keynesian. It is a stupid argument to make unless you are trying to claim that actions are only Capitalist or Socialist (which, binary as it is, is also a stupid argument to make.)
*Yawn*. This is nothing more than a statement of belief premised upon your views of incentives and human nature.No it's based upon the very real disillusionment workers in Soviet Russia endured through most of the regime's economic policies (other than the NEP, that worked rather well but that's hardly an arguement for communism); quality of consumer products plummeted.
Oh, is this a history debate? I hadn't realised that you wanted to talk about Soviet Russia - you should probably go and find someone who is supportive of those types of regimes if you want a discussion.
With no incentive to work harder and very strict deadlines quality is inevitably going to suffer.
There is no need for the "no incentive to work harder" to be included. The Soviet Union's quality of production can easily be explained by overuse of the stick on its own.
Regardless, my point was that capitalism claims to be meritocratic - that people get what they deserve.I would argue that it is that they CAN get what they deserve provided they are willing to put in the effort rather than an absoloute truth; no economic system is flawless.
It's a major flaw to have such vast inequalities. You speak about Capitalism as if people aren't earning millions of pounds a year while others earn less than a pound a day.
This sentence doesn't make any sense.Yes it is a tad run-on; it's two seperate clauses: that is is ridiculous to suggest that people should not be hired based upon ability and it is ridiculous to suggest that the principle of competitve employment is flawed.
It was not a tad run-on, it didn't make sense, particularly "shouldn't be is ridiculous". Anyhow, I have not questioned either of those practices.
HAH. You kids really make me laugh some times. You really sound like a public school boy.I'm not sure whether to suggest it would be better for all of us if your wit were capable of making anyone laugh or to point out that hiding behind your age is a poorly-veiled appeal to authority. You seem very keen on these, do you lack critical thinking of your own?
You seem insistent on seeing fallacies where there are none. Guess that's just the scars of a public school education.
To quote oneself in such a manner is childish and arrogant. I know, I used to do it.It is pretentious stylistically speaking, true, but that doesn't mean a point is not valid nor that insulting someone so bluntly is justified.
The quote was wrapped in arrogance, said little and meant less, and was deserving of anything thrown at it. I work on a system of merit.
You speak out of turn, boy.You speak out of your posterior, bolshie.
Bolshie? Jesus, that's a wild assumption from you.
Shameless, I know, but I can resist everything barring temptation
Hypocrisy seems to be a big temptation for you then.
Wow, starting with an arrogant generalisation is really coming out swinging.What can I say? Foolish and naeive world views get the better of me.
Clearly overwhelming you to the point that you adopt them. I guess that public school must have buggered such bad traits into you from an early age.
No they haven't (a generalisation can only be answered thusly.)A generalisation perhaps but I defy you to find a discourse arguing against instinct.
Why would I bother? You have yet to make a watertight argument for acquistion being a human instinct. What you have done is point to "the whole of human history" (yet another gross generalisation) and hunter-gatherer societies and then said that acquistion is an instinct. I could equally point to exactly the same things and say that the idea of property was a useful tool in the creation of primative societies and thus prospered. That would mean that it has been integral to human societies, but is not necessarily integral to human nature.
Your argument is really quite poorly defined as well. What exactly does an instinct for acquistion mean? What are its limits? Is there a point where people are satisified? It could be that, once properly defined, your view on a instinct for acquisition poses no problem for my views.
The concept of Tabula Rasa does not consider it at all, one of its many flaws, and so is hardly a fitting example.
Hahaha. I love this. Because it is "flawed" - in that it is an argument that does not address your viewpoint - it should not be used as an example of the diversity of views on the issue of human nature.
Sorry, but selective use of information isn't the basis of a sound argument.
For example, one of the largest debates has been over there being a set human nature or not: nature or nuture. This isn't a finer point, this is a vital point that defines the entire debate.I would argue the nature vs. nurture debate is more of an over-arching, umbrella debate than an actual discussion in to the nature of humanity.
You would argue that the question of the flexibility of human nature is not part of the debate on human nature? I'd like to see the logical somersaults you use to achieve that.
Regardless, this doesn't back up your bullshit generalisation that the debate on human nature is over the finer points.
I'm going to chalk this sentence up to youthful arrogant ignorance. Or maybe even ignorant arrogance. I will obviously offer better responses when not having to deal with gross unthinking generalisations that show as much intellectual subtly as a statement from Boris Johnson.So you're suggesting that there exist people who do not feel that they 'own' something?
No, I'm saying that the debate on human nature does include the issue of acquisition and property and that it is not something that is taken for granted.
Oh goodo, evolutionary biology and history. You're making two rather large logic jumps: making the motivation for acquistion as greed (in effect using a thick rationality model) and equating the actions of states and soceities with individuals.Evolutionary biology and history are very closely related once goes back far enough; if we hold it to be true then it contains within the basic motivations for our individual behaviour and societal structures. To suggest I hold 'greed' as the basic motivation is to miscomprehend; I hold instinctual urge to collect as this initial impulse. It isn't greedy to provide for yourself or loved ones and protect what you have gained.
You seem to be establishing an argument for possessions, not for a model of greedy human nature. Do you know much about mutualism?I am arguing for possessions, my word you are observant.
Then you have missed the original points and inserted an argument of your own. If you so desperately wanted to debate me you could have done so without trying to defend the stupidity of another with your own stupidity.
This concept, however, largely goes against the doctrine of communal living. Mutualism isn't in the spirit of communism either and is more of anarchic system that, to my mind, would cause even more suffering than true laissez-faire capitalism.
I asked you if you knew anything about mutualism, I did not relate it to communism. I asked because I was wondering what you thought about the mutualist view on property.
I wasn't using an appeal to authority: an appeal to authority would, for example, have been me saying that Human Nature is a blank slate and quoting John Locke. I was provided examples of the point that there has been, and is, a huge debate on human nature. And again, your argument is misaimed - you are trying to prove a greedy human nature, not the existence of possessions in human societies.You were appealing to authority in that you were implying that if these greats minds argue it then surely it is not our place to have set ideas.
No. I argued that holding such a poorly thought out view on human nature as gospel truth when there exists a huge debate on the subject (as demonstrated by the reference to Plato, etc) is pathetic.
Oh and don't tell me what I'm arguing,
Haha. I love this, the sentence before sees you attempting to tell me what my own argument is and then this comes along.
I'm clearly establishing a case for a concept of ownership which is in itself enough to put a spoke in the wheels of communist doctrine.
No, you're poorly attempting to establish an ill-defined "instinct of acquisition" whose impact on communist doctrine (another thing that is yet to be defined or discussed: people always seem to want to attribute views to me that I haven't mentioned) is yet to be seen.
Global capitalism has changed little, it has just concentrated its workshops in the third world.Which, too, will develop.
Belief.
Also, I must say, I find it rather ironic that you're arguing the plight of sweatshop workers when the worst offender is China which is an avowedly communist country. While admittedly communist in name and despotism only it does mean that the workers have no opportunity to dissent.
Why do you find it ironic? Have I said I am a Maoist (or, more to the point, a Dengist)? Have I, in fact, said that I am a communist or a supporter of China and the former Soviet Union?
No, they are your assumptions.
At 9/19/08 03:19 AM, homor wrote:At 9/18/08 07:12 PM, WARTORIOUS wrote: moronic conspiracy bullshit.shoo shoo little one, the big kids are talking.
Bahahaha! I love it - a 14 year old trying to condescend a (hopefully dyslexic) 20 year old.
I'm even more drawn to this. Having nothing to do with my time no doubt helps.
I agree he is largely ignorant of communist doctrine but that said most communists are; if they continued listening past 'everyone is equal and noone need suffer' they'd pause for thought.
Wow, starting with an arrogant generalisation is really coming out swinging.
Human Nature is a concept that has been the focus of philosophical debate for thousands of years. Plato argued that there were two conflicting sides to Human Nature - rationality and desires - and Aristolte thought there were three parts to Human Nature. John Locke argued that there is no such thing as Human Nature: that humans are born as 'blank slates' that experiences can write a personality on to. Karl Marx argued that there is both elements of rigidity and plasticity in Human Nature and that the material circumstances of a time will alter Human Nature.All philosophical discourse on human nature has been on the finer points: the seemingly incomprehensible motivations and actions of an equally loving and hateful beast.
No they haven't (a generalisation can only be answered thusly.)
For example, one of the largest debates has been over there being a set human nature or not: nature or nuture. This isn't a finer point, this is a vital point that defines the entire debate.
It is not, however, a discussion on what is taken for granted, that is everyone has a sense of ownership and wishes to procur more.
I'm going to chalk this sentence up to youthful arrogant ignorance. Or maybe even ignorant arrogance. I will obviously offer better responses when not having to deal with gross unthinking generalisations that show as much intellectual subtly as a statement from Boris Johnson.
This lies routed in very basic hunter/gatherer instincts and barring ideologically motivated societies (few and short-lasting) human history has been one of acquisition.
Oh goodo, evolutionary biology and history. You're making two rather large logic jumps: making the motivation for acquistion as greed (in effect using a thick rationality model) and equating the actions of states and soceities with individuals.
We do have the propensity to share but we also feel that some items, even some people, are 'ours' and to argue this is false based upon the large and varied amount of interpretations of humanity is simply ridiculous.
You seem to be establishing an argument for possessions, not for a model of greedy human nature. Do you know much about mutualism?
An appeal to authority doesn't work when discussing truths that are held as common knowledge; if you've never once considered an item yours congratulations but you would still only be the exception proving the rule.
I wasn't using an appeal to authority: an appeal to authority would, for example, have been me saying that Human Nature is a blank slate and quoting John Locke. I was provided examples of the point that there has been, and is, a huge debate on human nature. And again, your argument is misaimed - you are trying to prove a greedy human nature, not the existence of possessions in human societies.
Wonderful critique of Capitalism that, just as Marx would have put it. When the workers realise that they merit more than is given they will rise up and end the injustice of Capitalism. When they see past the woolen noose of meritocracy they will destroy the oppressive apparatus of the state and bring the system to the ground. Comrade, how right you are! Can we not all see the collusion of the government and the rich at the moment? The US Government is currently spending billions of dollars rescuing the rich (who mostly remain rich) from their mistakes in the financial markets. Is such help there for the poor? Hah, the government actively encourages jobs to flee abroad and then berates the poor for being unable to 'get on their bike' and find a job.Firstly Marx was writing about a very different capitalism than what we have today; I cannot and will not deny that workers at that time were suffering but due to the flexibility of a system driven by profit and conveniance it has changed.
Global capitalism has changed little, it has just concentrated its workshops in the third world.
Standards of living have improved and people are no longer at the mercy of their class or employer, only their merits and perseverance.
Hahaha. Merits "and" perseverance - that's your get out clause. That people tend to be bound by the social class they were born in is due to a lack of "perseverance"...clearly.
our governmental system is not a meritocracy (unless of course you were not confusing what the word meant and were actually suggesting people shouldn't be employed based upon their ability)
I was talking about the economic system, not the government system. The confusion is yours.
and your government has bailed out the banks and placed restrictions on the free market (which is a socialist principle and therefore surely right up your street) in order to protect the economy and their people.
Firstly, not my government. Secondly, it is not a socialist principle to nationalise only those private businesses that are failing - providing help for those capitalist gamblers that were losing their money. It is certainly not up my street.
The 'evil capitalist pig' method would be to simply allow market forces to play out, the weak would fail and the strong survive. This, of course, could have diastrous consequences bankrupting millions of businesses and bringing about another depression; I cannot forgive the Bush administration for doing something so evil and socialist as helping their people either, the dastards.
My point was aimed at free marketers, of which you appear not to be.
Oh wait, were you talking about Communism? A system of giving as much as you can and taking as much as you need doesn't really try to work along the lines of merit or even claim that it does. Meritocracy is a supposed feature of capitalism (something it fails woefully at) not Communism, although a system where people are more equal in their economic circumstances than now, when the richest person in the world can earn more in a minute than the poorest can in thier lifetime, will actually be more meritocratic.He wasn't talking about merit; he was talking about the very real fact that in a true communist system workers lose all motivation to excel and the economy stagnates.
*Yawn*. This is nothing more than a statement of belief premised upon your views of incentives and human nature.
Capitalism is not a true meritcoracy and would not claim to be as capitalism is not a governmental system;
Meritocracy is not a word limited to governmental systems. Regardless, my point was that capitalism claims to be meritocratic - that people get what they deserve.
to argue that people should not be hired and paid depending upon their ability or the principle that in a competitive system those less able will fall shouldn't be is ridiculous.
This sentence doesn't make any sense.
'You're a dickhead.' - Me (although likely inspired by the work of others)You're childish and petulant; I really will not allow such unprovoked ad hominems slide.
HAH. You kids really make me laugh some times. You really sound like a public school boy.
His point was very valid and to dismiss it in such a, frankly, witless manner shows a very good mark of character.
To quote oneself in such a manner is childish and arrogant. I know, I used to do it.
'He who blinds himself with his opinions and insults is entirely human' - me, although inspired by you.
You speak out of turn, boy.
I don't know why I do it, but it always tempts me.
Okay. First off the topic starter has no idea what Communism is or what Marx said/meant. So this topic is kinda stupid in that respect. However, I am forced by the sheer bloodymindness of the responses to offer anyone who thinks one sentence is the undoing of all Communist theory pause for thought.
I've said it several times, and I'll say it again. It doesn't work due to human nature. People are naturally greedy, thus ruining the system. Then everyone think it's a messed up government.
Human Nature is a concept that has been the focus of philosophical debate for thousands of years. Plato argued that there were two conflicting sides to Human Nature - rationality and desires - and Aristolte thought there were three parts to Human Nature. John Locke argued that there is no such thing as Human Nature: that humans are born as 'blank slates' that experiences can write a personality on to. Karl Marx argued that there is both elements of rigidity and plasticity in Human Nature and that the material circumstances of a time will alter Human Nature.
Your jumped-up, dumbed-down Austrian school view doesn't really cut it when you actually consider how many lifetimes far (far far) greater thinkers than you have dedicated to the idea of human nature and understanding what it is. And more, it's amazingly arrogant to try and dismiss a political theory on the grounds of your personal belief
At 9/22/08 01:33 AM, InsertKickassAlias wrote:At 9/21/08 10:20 PM, gdude100 wrote:"Equality" is a myth.Equality brings respect.
In order for "equality" to ever truly work, one must take the rewards reaped and earned from those of greater merit and bestow such blessings on those of lesser merit until there is an "even" proportion for all. Eventually, there will come a time where there shall be no real incentive to do anything constructive or productive, stagnation and collapsion will soon follow, and that will be the end of that society.
Wonderful critique of Capitalism that, just as Marx would have put it. When the workers realise that they merit more than is given they will rise up and end the injustice of Capitalism. When they see past the woolen noose of meritocracy they will destroy the oppressive apparatus of the state and bring the system to the ground. Comrade, how right you are! Can we not all see the collusion of the government and the rich at the moment? The US Government is currently spending billions of dollars rescuing the rich (who mostly remain rich) from their mistakes in the financial markets. Is such help there for the poor? Hah, the government actively encourages jobs to flee abroad and then berates the poor for being unable to 'get on their bike' and find a job.
Oh wait, were you talking about Communism? A system of giving as much as you can and taking as much as you need doesn't really try to work along the lines of merit or even claim that it does. Meritocracy is a supposed feature of capitalism (something it fails woefully at) not Communism, although a system where people are more equal in their economic circumstances than now, when the richest person in the world can earn more in a minute than the poorest can in thier lifetime, will actually be more meritocratic.
"The greatest form of robbery one can perform towards his fellow man rests in the guise of equality." ~Me
'You're a dickhead.' - Me (although likely inspired by the work of others)
I just had a quick scan down the topic list and realised that this forum isn't talking about the hot topic of the last week - the economy. No one concerned about the US government and its nationalisation of major parts of the US economy? No free traders disgusted by the weakness of the government and its misunderstanding of the market? Or how about the ban on short selling of the stocks of financial institutions? Again, an impediment to the market. Anyone?
Come on guys, where's the defence of pure unrestrained Capitalism when things are going tits up? I like to hear wildly invented stories based on knackered old economic philosophies.
Funny and just a little hypocritical when you look at the post history. You were the one who sniped at my profession. And so now you wish to portray my defense as something trite? How very droll of you my friend.
Actually I mentioned a debate in my profession as an aside, something you seem to have got quite huffy about.
This is my understanding of science: this is the definition that I use. The important thing to note is the 'operation of general laws', which is something that Politics lacks. I mean, if the only law that you can come up with (Duverger's) is only right most of the time then you're not really dealing with a branch of knowledge that should be understood in scientific terms.1) That you have a narrow personal understanding of science does not invalidate the other six definitions.
That you choose to use a broader definition of science does not invalidate my choice of a specific definition of science.
Were you not the person who was making the argument that one needed to seperate the individual from the analytical framework?
No, I wasn't. I was the one saying I relished the areas of contestability in politics.
2) Sciences such as physics and chemistry have abandoned the search for "general laws" because every time we think we've got the definitive, objective "truth"...technology improves and we find we were wrong in some way.
It is able to abandon laws when they are proven wrong because science is falsifiable....something which the vast majority of politics lacks.
Au contraire my friend. Here you show a lack of knowledge when it comes to both political science and what you consider science. First of all, in the US we apply stats to practically everything and not just voting. Civil rights, war, sanctions, trade, crime, gun control, presidential speeches, etc., etc.
Slow it down there. I'm talking about mathmatical modelling, not just 'using stats'.
As for the predictive power, there is a subset of political scientists (game theorists or rational choice) who engage in mathematical experimentation to predict behavior of actors and have shown remarkable accuracy with their math.
They've found a level of accuracy (not remarkable in any way shape or form) in the small areas where rational choice theory has been extensively applied.
Here's one of the leading rational choice political scientists in a popular e-magazine (not an academic journal).
It's fairly easy to model the behaviour of states in conflict in IR theory because the vast majority of people employed in foreign offices are taught to think in realist terms - they will work like rational actors.
Wait wait wait - where's the point about falsifiability? That's always been the defining feature of the science method for me. What about replication of results?Falsifiability (which I addressed at some point) is a scientific fool's errand. Remember the point I made above about how using "general laws" is an archaic definition of science?
Wait wait, you're rejecting the first definition of science? You're berating me for my narrow view of science, but you're going to reject that part of the definition that you brought up? Fucking hell.
All the experiments in the world cannot prove a theory is a law...but one experiment can prove it is not.
Which is its glory.
As for replication, that is easily done when you're talking about statistical analysis and rational choice. You lock your data set, say which version of STATA, SAS or SPSS you ran your analysis on and disperse that with your syntax. So yes replication of results is easily done in political science.
No, it's easily done in rational choice statistical modelling, which is a tiny little bit of politics and which has major methodological problems.
You berate me for being over specific in my definition and then try to prove a general point with a very specific example. Tut tut.
Ummm...this is not really an effective critique. I mean look at how long the "laws" of Newton stood until a better and more explanatory paradigm came about.Look at the trouble Einstein had in 1905...the miracle year...because he was going against Brownian motion. What about Faraday and his theories about electromagnetism?And look what advances economics has made in that time.............................my god, it's back to being exactly the same as a hundred years ago.
No-one has gone back to Newton though. The world economic viewpoint switched from neoclassical thinking to other frameworks (like Keynesian) and then back. Scientific laws don't just resurrect themselves like that.
A dominant framework in any discipline has an effect on the individual's psyche no matter what they are studying.Physics, chemistry and biology are equally closed to notions that upset their dominant research paradigms. So in this way your argument fails because the "hard" sciences also have problems with isolating the researching from the dominant analytical framework.Not really. A dominant framework in the hard sciences can be taught as truth until dethroned, in politics and economics it's more akin to brainwashing.
But there's much more a question of proof with politics and eocnomics.
Their science is just as prone to what you criticize my science of.
No its not. There is a large degree of difference between them. You've highlighted a few examples of science doing what is the norm in politics.
From what I've seen, a limited version of politics fits a broad definition of a science and follows a simplified scientific method.Then you haven't seen enough.
Pretty arrogant thing to say to someone who has the same level of full qualifications as you in politics.
Fair enough, although physics, chemistry and biology all have the huge advantage of having falsifiability.There is not a single human endeavor that is not falsifiable.
The search for God. It can't be proven that he doesn't exist. Or more to the point, the search for human nature.
It does not harm to remember the questionability of one's premises. It does a lot of harm to stifle debate by claiming objective truth.And yet debate is not stifled. You can make any argument you want, but without data you're building an argument of cards.
It's not a question of not having data or evidence, it's a question of the methodological assumptions that underlie the data being buried.
If the term "scientific" implies that a finding is objectively true...then it is because the person perceiving the implication is unfamiliar with just how "unscientific" science really is.In the end, your critism is very unscientific.I don't try to offer the veneer of objective fact that claiming my work is scientific implies.
Or, instead of your blindingly arrogant view that I'm just ignorant, it could be that I take a far different view on where the lines of what is science and what isn't science should be drawn.
As for veneers...the only one who is applying a veneer of "objective truth" is you in regards to what you preceive science is.
Not really seeing as I've engaged you in debate and not tried to shout you down or refused to acknowledge anything you've said.
I'm not quite sure why anyone would wish to engage in the cross-atlantic academic sniping that goes on about 'political science', nor do I understand why this is the main point of a post....nevertheless......
Science: -noun
1. a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences.
This is my understanding of science: this is the definition that I use. The important thing to note is the 'operation of general laws', which is something that Politics lacks. I mean, if the only law that you can come up with (Duverger's) is only right most of the time then you're not really dealing with a branch of knowledge that should be understood in scientific terms.
Step 4: Test your Hypothesis by doing an Experiment: Most political scientists and economists do statistical analysis of real world observations. This analysis is often rather complex and does isolate variables. In fact we are trained in techniques to look for intervening variables. Other political scientists (I cannot speak for economists on this because I am not one) actually do experiments much like sociology and psychology.
In the confined areas of politics that stats can be used in (such as studies on elections and voting): students of politics do use stats in such a way. But if we're confining politics to that then you're losing out on pretty much all the interesting areas of politics: areas where different interpretations can make politics a viciously-fought battleground. For example, how do we decide on China's current intentions for the future? Are they benign, in line with the government pushing the idea of a 'peaceful rise'? Are they sneakily expansionist: modernising their military so they can win Tzuesque bloodless victories? Or are they intent on a peaceful rise, but recognise that their desires conflict with those of the US and that to redress power imbalances a modern military force is required?
Different bits of data can be used to support different points on this subject. In fact, the same data can be used to support completely different conclusions.
Wait wait wait - where's the point about falsifiability? That's always been the defining feature of the science method for me. What about replication of results?
I think that the scientific method is a lot more complicated then the definition you brought up would imply.
Your criticisms do not make us not a science, but rather address the problem of how valid our results are. When you use the criticism to attack the validity of our work you are onto something, but when you try and say we are not a science because of it...this is where your argument fails.
I don't really care what you wish to label the study of politics as long as the questions over validity are properly understood and not obsfuscated as they are in economics.
Afterall, if political science and economics are not sciences for the reasons you outlined (difficulty in isolating variables, bias and crude modeling) then neither are the atmospheric sciences (bye, bye global warming as scientific fact).
Meh, global warming is a political fact now.
Look at the trouble Einstein had in 1905...the miracle year...because he was going against Brownian motion. What about Faraday and his theories about electromagnetism?
And look what advances economics has made in that time.............................my god, it's back to being exactly the same as a hundred years ago.
Physics, chemistry and biology are equally closed to notions that upset their dominant research paradigms. So in this way your argument fails because the "hard" sciences also have problems with isolating the researching from the dominant analytical framework.
Not really. A dominant framework in the hard sciences can be taught as truth until dethroned, in politics and economics it's more akin to brainwashing.
In summary, political science and economics are sciences. We fit the defintional criteria for a science, but more importantly we also follow the scientific method.
From what I've seen, a limited version of politics fits a broad definition of a science and follows a simplified scientific method.
Furthermore, issues of variable isolation, bias and crude modeling are not problems that we alone deal with. Atmospheric sciences, physics, chemistry and biology all have to deal with this "validity" issues...
Fair enough, although physics, chemistry and biology all have the huge advantage of having falsifiability.
Therefore, when the numbers explain the world best under a neoliberal framework (or falsify neoliberalism less than socialism) should we use the perjorative of "ideological"?
It does not harm to remember the questionability of one's premises. It does a lot of harm to stifle debate by claiming objective truth.
In the end, your critism is very unscientific.
I don't try to offer the veneer of objective fact that claiming my work is scientific implies.
I always have to wonder why people think that capitalism is meritocratic. How can any system where one person can earn more money in a second than people can earn in a year? Any idea of merit in this context certainly wouldn't involve the idea of hard work, unless someone wants to argue that there are indeed supermen who can work millions of times harder than other people.How is capitalism not meritocratic?
My explaination is directly above. You were meant to respond to it, not pose an argument that tries to paper over my argument.
Is not a matter of working harder, its a matter of working smarter.
As a lazy smart person, I find a system that rewards me distinctly unfair.
Opportunity is there for everyone, sometimes it just takes a little sacrifice. I knew a kid who lived out of his car the first year of college so he could afford to go.
Do you know any people who went to Harvard on daddy's money and lived in a mansion? I'm sure they've earnt everything they're ever got.
Its still better than a socialist system where I get paid the same amount working my ass off as my lazy neighbor.
I think you need to brush up on your understanding of socialism. Seems a bit like a strawman to me.
If I don't waste money on soda and lattes; invest and save part of what I earn, then I deserve to (and will) have more money than someone who worked the same job, but wasn't smart with their money.
Sounds fair to me.
Wow, what a cherrypick. If you save more than you deserve those savings rather than someone who hasn't made any savings.
Fucking-a.
I have no idea where this thread went, I think I was working on an essay at the time and stopped responding. Oh well. There may be a few misteps because I can't really remember this thread at all.
Oh please. If information distribution was perfect, the market system had no flaws and we accept a rational actor understanding of human action then that argument is correct. However, information distribution is imperfect,Who'se problem is that? If you have a product or service that you would like to get compensated for, it should be up to you distribute the information about you. Why would you complain about someone not getting compensated for the work that he did, if he did not market it? Who's fault is it?
You're accepting that information distribution is imperfect and you think that it is up to the individual to correct the flaw in the system?
I thought this part was theoretical instead of practical.
the market system does have flawsWhich flaws are you reffering to.
*looks at the news* Hmmmmm.
and the rational actor model is also flawed and so we can't accept your entirely theoretical view.How is it flawed?
Because people aren't rational actors/if they are then their preferences are so disparate as to destroy any modelling based on it. The answer is dependent upon using either thick or thin rationality.
Plus, how does this relate to the current system of wage labour? You seem to be working in a framework of a society of market traders who barter.Oh but wage labour is a market. Everything is. And to small degree you do barter with your boss over hourly wage, benefits, and total hours work.
To a very small degree. Most of the time you take what you are given.
Are we having a theoretical or practical discussion, you seem to be jumping.
But the real bartering comes with the competition. If a company wants the best workers, it has to be willing to pay the highest wages.
How does it know who the best workers are? Where does that information come from?
On one more note, how can we be assured that individual greed will see to that?Simple. I'm greedy, I want an A-1 job done, I don't want to wait, so I will use your service since it is beneficial to me.
That's one person down. 6 billion left.
How else can you define value?
Again, a restatement of your view that the market is fair. You seem to be linking the idea of market value to some absolute idea of value (or arguing that the only true value of something is what someone will pay for it and what someone will sell it at.) Again, this may be a self-evident idea to you but it's no where near for me.
Value is utility it has to someone. Only the buyer can truly know the utility of something to him, and thus determine what price he is willing to give up for it. Value IS subjective.
So you think that justice is subjective? That it should be inconsistent?
That's fucking miles away from my theory of justice.
This is a free exchange. Your labor is diminished because with a large supply of unskilled worker's who are WILLING to work for a low hourly wage.
It seems like a very fair system....although as an argument for capitalism its very weak. A "free exchange" can not happen in a system of unequal power distribution or in a system with an inequality in supply and demand. In Capitalism this inequality in supply and demand is seen by the average worker, who needs work to live (and thus is subject to economic coercion) and has to look for work from people who do not need one particular worker (i.e. that have the choice from a large supply who not only demand work, but require it.)
Who are forced to by their economic circumstances.
lol? price doesn't change? Just because every store is not a garage sale doesn't mean that the way a price is determined is random. If its to high they will sell less, forcing them to lower their price.
That's completely fine, although entirely hypothetical. We do not live in a system of market traders. We live in a system of wages and of set prices.
A simple demand curve.
I didn't say price doesn't change, I said we live in a system of set prices (i.e. the opposite of a bartering system.)
It's also certainly not unprecedented to go to war for vital resources that fuel (literally in the case of oil) the economy.So show me how the U.S. economy has benefited from this.
It hasn't, not yet. Anyhow, I magine Iraq represents more of a strategic asset than an economic one, although I'm sure in 2030 when US oil consumption reaches 27 million bpd (EIA prediction) that Iraqi oil will be giving a helping hand.
Or do you side with bc in the claim that every last cent somehow went back into the administration's pockets?
I think there was certainly some fishy things going on with regards to allocation of funds (mostly Iraqi funds, though.) But I wouldn't involve the US administration personally, mainly because they're mostly already multi-millionaires.......although that does suggest they're used to a bit of skulduggary to climb the greasy pole higher.
Not really, academic economists tend to shed their ideological leanings and deal with cold hard numbers.Too bad that most economists now look upon the Hoover/FDR policies as prolonging the Great Depression.That's because most economists are blinkered by their ideological beliefs and don't reflect on actualy situations or different modes of thought.
'Cold hard numbers' tell you very little without an analytical framework, which is almost always of a neoliberal bent with current economists. Economics (and also Politics) is not a science: variables can not be isolated, the individual can not be seperated from the analysis and the modelling is crude at best.
If you fancy a bit of a read to labour the point about analytic frameworks, this was on the first page of google http://people.ischool.berkeley.edu/~hal/
Papers/theory.pdf . Point 2 is the main thing, since my conclusions differ greatly from the author's.
Sorry, but this argument fails.
Because you said so? Sorry, but that argument fails.
1) The military is actually bled dry. There is not much more cutting that can be done without destroying our effectiveness.And he saddled us with Social Security (and then bankrupted it with IOUs)...which will implode the federal budget in the next twenty years. Helluva legacy.There's always military spending the US can cut back on, or it could decide which way to go with its health system rather than having its current pathetic halfbreed that sucks up money to give to private companies.
Ah, see that's the rub isn't it. I don't think the US needs as an effective military as it now has. It doesn't need to have hegemonic military power; it doesn't need to account for 46% of world military spending; it doesn't need to be returning to a Cold War level of spending. These are just desires for strength and power: they have nothing to do with defence.
This knee jerk argument is often the first sign of ignorance.
You can keep the arrogance to a minimum, thank you.
2) Healthcare needs to be kept private. In 20 years every dollar the government takes in will barely be able to pay for Social Security and Medicare/aid. There will be no revenue available for any other program: education, roads, military, or UHC (if we add it to our expenses). Pretty much our politicians (from FDR to the next president, Democrat or Republican) have put us on a collision course with governmental bankruptcy. Now is not the time to add another entitlement.
My problem with Medicare/aid is that they are bastard programmes that fail to deliver and cost shit loads. Either go one way or the other: Universal healthcare or a completely private system would cost less.
Making good, slanted propaganda is a much neglected artform.
Too bad that most economists now look upon the Hoover/FDR policies as prolonging the Great Depression.
That's because most economists are blinkered by their ideological beliefs and don't reflect on actualy situations or different modes of thought.
And he saddled us with Social Security (and then bankrupted it with IOUs)...which will implode the federal budget in the next twenty years. Helluva legacy.
There's always military spending the US can cut back on, or it could decide which way to go with its health system rather than having its current pathetic halfbreed that sucks up money to give to private companies.
Blegh... we only get about 21% of our imported oil from the persian gulf, with even less than that coming from Iraq (around 3%). But the point still remains; of all the arabian countries we get oil imported from, why would we spend so much money and time on a country that accounts for that little bit of our oil imports? Why wouldn't we make up some bullshit excuse and go after Saudi Arabia, or better yet, Canada (whom we the most oil imported from at 16% of total imports)?
Because Canada and Saudi Arabia are already secure sources of oil, the US already gets oil from them and there Iraq offered an opportunity because of its international situation. The Iraq war, for me, wasn't about obtaining more oil to profit the US (or the Bush administration) in the short-term, but to provide long-term oil security to the US by installing a friendly government on good terms that is seen to have a debt to the US, by opening up the oil sector to foreign investment, by keeping US troops in there for the foreseeable future (which also provides a good base for other potential forays into the Middle East) and potentially improving the US's influence in OPEC.
It's not historically unprecedented to go to war for oil. There was the Germans against the Russians in WW2 and the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour: the US even considered it against Saudi Arabia during the 70s OPEC embargo. It's also certainly not unprecedented to go to war for vital resources that fuel (literally in the case of oil) the economy.
