Exposure to socialism increases the proclivity to cheat?

[ksen]

No.

How about "the means of production are collectively owned, said collective ownership usually expressed by state ownership".

In a fully realized socialist state there wouldn't be a political government to own anything.

http://www.slp.org/res_state_htm/socialism_m_p.html

Socialist government is not state government. It would not rule over people and places, but would empower the people to rule over things. Socialism means a government in which the people collectively own and democratically operate the industries and social services through an economic democracy. And when we say “collectively own,” we are not talking about homes, or cars, or other personal belongings. We are talking about the things needed to produce and distribute homes, cars and all the other things we need and want.

Under socialism the workers who operate the industries and services would collectively own and democratically manage them. In each factory and other workplace, the rank and file would elect their own immediate supervisors and management committees. They would also elect representatives to local and national assemblies of the industry or service in which they work, and to an all-industrial congress to coordinate production and distribution of all goods and services throughout the country. In short, socialism would replace the political government run by politicians with an industrial government run by workers and their elected representatives.

Instead of a senator from California or a representative from New York, there would be worker-delegates from the automotive industry, from the transportation systems, from the mines, from the clothing factories, from services such as restaurants, hospitals, schools and so on. These representatives would have the single task of deciding what should be produced and how best to produce it.

Today we have political democracy only. Workers do not have economic democracy. The owners of the factories have almost absolute power over their employees. They can fire whomever they please, whenever they please. They can close the plant down and move to another state or another country. They can even order their workers to manufacture something worthless or harmful. In short, they have all the power of dictators—economic dictators.

Socialism means economic democracy. Instead of voting once every two or four years for politicians, workers would be making decisions every day where they work and in the field in which they are most qualified. Here is where their vote counts because it vitally affects their own personal lives.

When we use the word “worker,” we mean everyone who sells his or her labor power, or ability to work, at so much per hour, or so much per week, to a capitalist employer. Coal miners are workers, but so are musicians, scientists, nurses, teachers, architects, inventors and mathematicians.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

A very specialized definition of the term that decidedly doesn't apply to every variant of socialism.

Socialism qua socialism describes an economic system. Many times it is paired with various political systems, and many do try to insist only the anarchistic pairing is the accurate one, but that is not a necessary condition.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I think cheating became the norm in E. Germany pre unification. Higher party officials used their positions to extract extra benefits. Lower officials used their positions to extract bribes from workers. Both of those are capitalistic practices. They had commodities and used their access to those commodities to sell them to extract remuneration from those wanting/needing those commodities. Lack of ethical controls in the socialistic systems allowed these things to happen. I think they would happen again if such a system was tried. As someone else said, a lack of government transparency gave rise to these practices. I'm not sure such a level of transparency required for true socialism on a large scale is even possible in the modern world.

Exactly. Those who grew up in a system where you cheated if you could are more inclined to cheat. Duh!

 

[ksen]

A very specialized definition of the term that decidedly doesn't apply to every variant of socialism.

I'm not sure why that's important but ok.

Socialism qua socialism describes an economic system. Many times it is paired with various political systems, and many do try to insist only the anarchistic pairing is the accurate one, but that is not a necessary condition.

I'm pretty sure just about every system is like that.

 

[Emily Lake]

Or it means that what the East Germans were exposed to wasn't socialism, but a foreign occupation following a lost war, which left behind immense damage and loss of productivity, and the rulers imposed on - not elected by - them was discriminative, incompetent, brutal and dishonest, so that the only way anyone could get anything done was by deception.

This. If you ask me, this thread should be moved to pseudoscience as I really don´t see how they could possible conclude that people with an east-german family background cheating more at abstract tasks has fuck-all to do with socialism versus capitalism. Me thinks the researcer´s bias is showing (which should be obvious by the language they use in the abstract). The only thing they´ve supposedly demonstrated is that east germans cheat more.

More specifically - East Germans from an era that were exposed to significant pressures of scarcity and government corruption cheat more. Which says a lot about the pressures of scarcity and lack of trust in government maybe, but not much about socialism.

It also says a lot about the researchers.

 

[doubtingt]

It is irrelevant whether East Germany counted as "socialism" or not, because East and West Germany differed (and continue to differ after "Unification" on almost every socio-cultural and economic variable that any two places could possibly differ on. Cross generational impacts of those cultural and SES differences persist to this day among the subjects in this study and people with an East German background are more likely to currently live in East Berlin and the same for West Germans. These areas of Berlin are like different cities in different countries, even today, with East Berlin having much more ethnic diversity, poverty, multi-culturalism, young adults, etc.. The number of confounds, not just historical ones but differences in where these people live now are in the dozens, and thus odds that any differences in cheating have anything to do with socialism per se are very low.

Note that these researchers believe they are eliminating confounds form current cultural and income factors by only using people who currently live in Berlin.

We ran the study in Berlin to control for regional variations such as income differences and
local attitudes, which might not correspond to the historical experiences of socialism or
capitalism in East and West Germany but to characteristics of a specific German region.

This is nonsense since anyone whose been to Berlin knows that different areas of that city have very different current cultures and socio-economic factors going on. They only control for a few variables about the individuals themselves (their own education level), and some of these are absurdly unreliable and invalid measures, such as their measure for SES which is a self report rating of "Very poor" to "very well off". They make no effort to control for which part of Berlin their subjects live in currently and all the ways those areas differ including income, employment, etc. (note people with "average" reported income could live in either generally poor or well off suburbs that differ in countless ways).

The fact that the authors call this a "natural experiment" is pathetic. A natural experiment is when you have naturally occurring groups that you can be sure only differ in limited ways. This is a completely uncontrolled purely correlational study in which the groups differ in countless ways that are equally or more plausible explanations for the cheating than the one they selectively highlight.

This study is not published or peer reviewed yet. I can only hope it isn't published in any form that make any claims about the impact of socialist economic systems, because it present no evidence of any such impact and is a

 

[AthenaAwakened]

If a persons lives in a society where the norm is to "cheat," is that person cheating or simply playing by a different set of Rules?

 

[Canard DuJour]

In socialism, the workers *CONTROL* the means of production (or "production, distribution and exchange," assuming some variety of maket socialism).

"Workers" means people payed for what they do rather than what they own, including managers and specialists (though not the modern CEO who is increasingly a technical nincompoop payed to represent the interests of owners and investors).

Thus the more social of the social democracies, where workers and trade-unions are, by law, represented on the boards of firms and in government, are more socialist than the Soviet Union or China. Most socialists now describe said monster bureacraucies as "state-capitalist"

The monster bureaucracy that was the GDR collapsed in 1989 when anyone reliably of "East German heritage" by the OP survey's criteria (To assess East or West German heritage, the survey asked the following questions: “In which city were you born?”, “Where did you live in the 1980s?”, “Where did you live in the 1990s?”, “What is your family background?”, “Where are you currently living?” and “How do you consider yourself?”.) would have been between 1 and 9 years old.

 

[Petrel]

The socialist dictatorships weren't funny but your misconceptions about them kind of are.

I was there. My misconceptions were acquired though direct experience.

And Christianity is not a religion but a relationship.

Huh?

I am very familiar with the concepts comrade. I think it is you who is lacking.

In many ways, I'm sure. but not this one.

By the way, you have not responded to my point about comparison of DDR and USSR on one hand and West and East Germany on the other, and how that is disastrous to your hypothesis.

Which hypothesis? That dictatorship is brought about through violence? That applies in both situations. These were not natural evolutions of democratic process; they were armed, brutal, chaotic upheavals, with the biggest, strongest predator in charge at the end. One of their earliest acts, in both of those countries, as well as Poland, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Estonia and Yugoslavia, was to purge the communist and socialist leaders.
West Germany was lucky; East Germany was unlucky. Every former ally - voluntary or [more likely] coerced - of the Nazi regime prayed to be conquered by the west, rather than Stalin's Russia. It wasn't about economic ideology; it was about degrees of brutality.
None of these outcomes, nor the subsequent adaptation of people to the way of life imposed on them, has any relation to socialism.

And the "study" is a crock of.

 

[Harry Bosch]

I really, really hate this re-branding of socialism as having a strong welfare state. The right uses this to demonize the the left and left is embracing this to destigmatize the word. Socialism is the community ownership of means of production. Europe is not socialist. If we deviate from the standard definition of socialism, what word do we use to describe the community ownership of the means of production? We can't necessarily call it a command economy because not all socialism is a command economy.

I myself am an actual socialist, but I don't think we should attempt socialism (or at least on any large scale) until we can reorganize the state to be competent, accountable and transparent. The state needs to prove itself competent before it starts attempting to take over the business industry and fucking things up.

Your post is spot on, and should be saved as a sticky! IMO, right wingers started calling any government program "socialism" during the Reagan days. Then the left adopted this definition during the later Clinton days (at least that is my estimate). I'm grossly generalizing of course.

 

[dismal]

In the old days leftists used to argue these socialist places weren't shitty. Now they argue these shitty places weren't socialism.

One seems to require less delusion than the other, so I guess this is progress.

 

[Petrel]

It might also possible to ignore the labels stuck on arbitrarily by we know-not-whom and look at each situation. Is a place/government/event shitty? By what standards? What's shitty about it? Has it any redeeming features? How did it get that way? Who is in charge? Who is behind the guy in charge? What's really going on? Cui bono?

If Grandma has a big nose, big ears, big teeth and way too much fur - think again.

 

[Bomb#20]

Look, it's very simple. When you're trying to establish what a scary word socialism is it's the government controls everything and no individuals are allowed to own anything, and government inefficiency therefore results in widespread unemployment, economic downturn and even starvation.

When you're trying to tar someone as a "socialist" so that they're associated with all that scariness socialism is any desire for things like welfare, foodstamps, educational subsidies, healthcare, or similar to be provided by the government.

Yes, quite so.

What's the confusion all about?

It's very simple. When you're trying to establish what a wonderful thing socialism is, it's welfare, foodstamps, educational subsidies, healthcare, or similar to be provided by the government. It's what they have in Sweden; it's about the workers having a larger piece of the production.

When you're trying to get your listeners to continue on from their conclusion that socialism is a wonderful thing, and also believe in your economic theories and longer-term goals, socialism means a government in which the people collectively own the things needed to produce and distribute homes, cars and all the other things we need and want. And implementing those theories can't possibly lead to the government controlling everything and no individuals being allowed to own anything and economic downturn and even starvation and so forth, because Sweden has welfare and educational subsidies and healthcare.

 

[Tigers!]

The state needs to prove itself competent before it starts attempting to take over the business industry and fucking things up.

I do hope you are really young because you most likely won't see that in your lifetime

 

[The Paul]

In the old days leftists used to argue these socialist places weren't shitty. Now they argue these shitty places weren't socialism.

One seems to require less delusion than the other, so I guess this is progress.

Maybe one day they'll be realistic enough to just let you explain to them what it is they believe.

 

[The Paul]

Yes, quite so.

What's the confusion all about?

It's very simple. When you're trying to establish what a wonderful thing socialism is, it's welfare, foodstamps, educational subsidies, healthcare, or similar to be provided by the government. It's what they have in Sweden; it's about the workers having a larger piece of the production.

When you're trying to get your listeners to continue on from their conclusion that socialism is a wonderful thing, and also believe in your economic theories and longer-term goals, socialism means a government in which the people collectively own the things needed to produce and distribute homes, cars and all the other things we need and want. And implementing those theories can't possibly lead to the government controlling everything and no individuals being allowed to own anything and economic downturn and even starvation and so forth, because Sweden has welfare and educational subsidies and healthcare.

In the alternate universe where that big ol' communist conspiracy not only really existed but continued to this day, I'd be appropriately chastised.

However, I once again find that while you've done an adequate job of imitating the grammatical structure of my post, you've lost track of what universe I made it from.

 

[Bomb#20]

In the alternate universe where that big ol' communist conspiracy not only really existed but continued to this day, I'd be appropriately chastised.

However, I once again find that while you've done an adequate job of imitating the grammatical structure of my post, you've lost track of what universe I made it from.

I wasn't chastising you; I was simply pointing out that the left wing and the right wing are evil twins in this respect. They have the same incentive to equivocate on their definitions of "socialism", and they do it with the same enthusiasm. But now you've put me in the position of having to chastise you. You had zero basis for accusing me of conspiracy theories. You didn't see me accusing you of postulating a vast right wing conspiracy to smear the good name of socialism, did you? It doesn't take a conspiracy for an ideologue of whatever persuasion to fudge his definitions in order to make people's emotional reaction to one thing rub off on whatever other thing he'd like it to rub off on; all it takes is a little intellectual dishonesty, something both wings have in abundance. As for the source of my material, you really don't need to go as far as another universe to find it. You don't even need to go outside this thread.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

In the old days leftists used to argue these socialist places weren't shitty. Now they argue these shitty places weren't socialism.

One seems to require less delusion than the other, so I guess this is progress.

And just when did this monolithic left exist?

 

[The Paul]

In the alternate universe where that big ol' communist conspiracy not only really existed but continued to this day, I'd be appropriately chastised.

However, I once again find that while you've done an adequate job of imitating the grammatical structure of my post, you've lost track of what universe I made it from.

I wasn't chastising you; I was simply pointing out that the left wing and the right wing are evil twins in this respect. They have the same incentive to equivocate on their definitions of "socialism", and they do it with the same enthusiasm. But now you've put me in the position of having to chastise you. You had zero basis for accusing me of conspiracy theories. You didn't see me accusing you of postulating a vast right wing conspiracy to smear the good name of socialism, did you? It doesn't take a conspiracy for an ideologue of whatever persuasion to fudge his definitions in order to make people's emotional reaction to one thing rub off on whatever other thing he'd like it to rub off on; all it takes is a little intellectual dishonesty, something both wings have in abundance. As for the source of my material, you really don't need to go as far as another universe to find it. You don't even need to go outside this thread.

Hrm. Complaining about how unfair it is of me to accuse you of believing in conspiracy theories will be more effective if it doesn't immediately follow your description of how the left uses a fluid definition of socialism so that basic social welfare policies can be used to slowly lure people into abolishing private ownership.

Now that I think about it, that does seem to be a standard tactic on the right, though:

1) Say something too fucking insane to pass without comment
2) Cry about how the left is "accusing" you of believing that insane thing

I'm sure it's very compelling to the same people who feel that as Christians in the United States they are being subjected to terrible oppression, or whatever, but if you're dealing with an audience whose power of reason continued to develop until age 9 or so you ought to step up your game.

 

[SimpleDon]

We seem to be avoiding the obvious conclusion here. That what is true in life is also true in political and economic systems, moderation is the key, avoid the extremes.

In political systems we shouldn't go to the extremes of either the totalitarianism of the left and of the workers, communism, or the totalitarianism of the right and of the capitalists, fascism.

In economic systems we should avoid the extremes of collectivism suppressing individual initiative or the abandonment of collective action from an idealistic view of what the individual can accomplish alone. We shouldn't go to the extremes of trying to change our current economy into an idealistic and impossible to achieve model economy based on ideology of either the capital and personal ownership free model of Marx or the self-regulating, self-organizing free market operating without any government interference so popular with so many here.

Rather we should work to understand the economy that we have here today, the economy that has changed and evolved over thousands of years. An economy that has over the years tried most of the ideas in both extremes and has rejected them. Not because of the heavy hand of government action but because the ideas and theories were impractical and unworkable.

Moderation is the key. Avoid the extremes. Simple.