Socialism Is Always Doomed to Fail

[4321lynx]

You need those to know the difference between Britain and North Korea?

In Britain there is collective ownership of the means of production?

I see it a lot. If someone is talking about the social safety net, and they use the word "socialism" to praise it, they used the word "socialism" correctly. But if someone is talking about the social safety net, and they use the word "socialism" to criticize it, they used the word "socialism" incorrectly.

So, while parts of the British economy are indeed under state control, is that the case overall? Or are you conflating socialism with the social safety net?

The usual 'Not true Scotsmen' sort of argument. Great theories again? How many times do you wanh to try them?

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Abstract
Legal systems often rule that people own objects in their territory. We propose that an early-developing ability to make territory-based inferences of ownership helps children address informational demands presented by ownership. Across 6 experiments (N = 504), we show that these inferences develop between ages 3 and 5 and stem from two aspects of the psychology of ownership. First, we find that a basic ability to infer that people own objects in their territory is already present at age 3 (Experiment 1). Children even make these inferences when the territory owner unintentionally acquired the objects and was unaware of them (Experiments 2 and 3). Second, we find that between ages 3 and 5, children come to consider past events in these judgments. They move from solely considering the current location of an object in territory-based inferences, to also considering and possibly inferring where it originated (Experiments 4 to 6). Together, these findings suggest that territory-based inferences of ownership are unlikely to be constructions of the law. Instead, they may reflect basic intuitions about ownership that operate from early in development.

There is a natural instinct towards property ownership. This is probably why all hitherto experiments of collectivization or social ownership fail or do poorly. (Soviet Union; Venezuela; Maoist China.) Let's be mindful of our own human natural instincts to avoid calamity in the future.

So basically what you're saying is that capitalism is based on a 3 year old understanding of the world, or a 4 year old finding something and saying "finders keepers" or screaming "mine, mine!" Well, I guess it's a good thing that you have to be an adult to vote then...quite a few years after you've stopped having tantrums, unless you're Donald Trump.

See, that's the thing. Children go through a development process called, guess what? Child development. There's whole books and psychology based on this which in part you are referring to by looking at a single paper that you thought supported your view. Within child development, children at a very early stage care mostly for their own needs and love themselves. Next, they learn to love their parents. Only later in life are more advanced things possible in their minds, like the ability to love other people and like the ability to think rationally and discard emotions.

If they're lucky. Because life factors may affect their development such as neglectful parents which may keep their development stunted back at those early stages. I wonder about throwing an adolescent into a military school, what kind of mind job that could do on development. It may be neglectful in some ways, too. And it might explain why Dear Leader Trump is so backward.

 

[Tigers!]

I find myself agreeing with Loren.

Ford you need to be very careful.

- - - Updated - - -

Socialism is succeeding everywhere.

Do you have a list?

I suspect our definitions of both socialism and capitalism differ greatly.

 

[coloradoatheist]

I also agree that one study doesn't prove or disprove socialism. Human behavior is quite complex and mysterious.

But the biggest issue with capitalism is that it's too successful, and those are the issues we have to deal with.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I also agree that one study doesn't prove or disprove socialism. Human behavior is quite complex and mysterious.

But the biggest issue with capitalism is that it's too successful, and those are the issues we have to deal with.

Capitalism is doomed to failure without significant checks and balances. We saw that in 2008.

 

[coloradoatheist]

I also agree that one study doesn't prove or disprove socialism. Human behavior is quite complex and mysterious.

But the biggest issue with capitalism is that it's too successful, and those are the issues we have to deal with.

Capitalism is doomed to failure without significant checks and balances. We saw that in 2008.

No, it would have survived. Again back to that perfection quote, we've come to believe we must engineer the economy at all times to try and get something now instead of long term. And the crisis in 08 was a joint effort between govt and the banks.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

You need those to know the difference between Britain and North Korea?

In Britain there is collective ownership of the means of production?

I see it a lot. If someone is talking about the social safety net, and they use the word "socialism" to praise it, they used the word "socialism" correctly. But if someone is talking about the social safety net, and they use the word "socialism" to criticize it, they used the word "socialism" incorrectly.

So, while parts of the British economy are indeed under state control, is that the case overall? Or are you conflating socialism with the social safety net?

The usual 'Not true Scotsmen' sort of argument. Great theories again? How many times do you wanh to try them?

The definition of Socialism is collective ownership of the means of production. It isn't the welfare state. In practice the collective ownership is exercised by the government. Calling what I wrote "No True Scotsman" is, well, ... suppose you have a man who was born and raised in Japan. As were his ancestors for at least 30 generations. He looks and speaks Japanese. His DNA test comes back and says while he has a tiny bit of Chinese or Korean he has absolutely no European. Would you say he is a Scotsman? Apparently yes. The usual "No False Scotsman" sort of argument.

 

[arkirk]

"Socialism" is a word like "shit" that we have been trained by our media to use to queer human relations with this silly idea that ownership is somehow real. Socialism may be thought of as whatever we elect to make governance become. The democratic institutions need to be safeguarded from the manufacturers of unconscious and uninformed consent. When you have a system of ownership of nearly all of the means of communication, you have something that stands against socialism and declares it unworkable. Human beings and in fact, all life are phenomenons that exist for a limited length of time in an environment. They own nothing and they require a very limited range of conditions to exist at all. Somehow in all this ballyhoo about the spirit of man etc., we lose sight of the fact that we are just one very frail species playing with fire that can and will burn us. We would perhaps live best in an unforced environment where we could find agreement on how to do a number of activities that foster quality of life for us all. That is what is at the bottom of the notion that socialism is good for us and only our peacefully socialized aspects of life are very satisfying to most of the human race. That is my take on what Chomsky has been about. The penal aspect of our lives is always only used by people who are overly concerned with owning things. That is why the major philosophical leaders whose theory of governance give ownership of things a true perspective based on life functions are always attacked by the elite who feel they simply are not able to live without the privileges of ownership.

We are stuck with our environment and it truly OWNS US. How we function in it determines our longevity individually and as a species. We are such dangerous creatures and we just don't posit that however dangerous we are, that is to ourselves. I regard railing against "socialism" as childish, self defeating, and dangerous to all of civilization.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I also agree that one study doesn't prove or disprove socialism. Human behavior is quite complex and mysterious.

But the biggest issue with capitalism is that it's too successful, and those are the issues we have to deal with.

Capitalism is doomed to failure without significant checks and balances. We saw that in 2008.

No, it would have survived.

No... there was a credit freeze, and an economy fails when capital can't move.

Again back to that perfection quote, we've come to believe we must engineer the economy at all times to try and get something now instead of long term. And the crisis in 08 was a joint effort between govt and the banks.

The banks didn't trust each other.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

The usual 'Not true Scotsmen' sort of argument. Great theories again? How many times do you wanh to try them?

The definition of Socialism is collective ownership of the means of production. It isn't the welfare state. In practice the collective ownership is exercised by the government. Calling what I wrote "No True Scotsman" is, well, ... suppose you have a man who was born and raised in Japan. As were his ancestors for at least 30 generations. He looks and speaks Japanese. His DNA test comes back and says while he has a tiny bit of Chinese or Korean he has absolutely no European. Would you say he is a Scotsman? Apparently yes. The usual "No False Scotsman" sort of argument.

We tried laissez faire capitalism and it doesn't work well. Communism Soviet style doesn't work. The problem is far right types braying about socialism when what we have is nothing like socialism. We see that when we give the laissez faire capitalist reactionaries free reign such as we saw in the Bush years, Kansas, and Louisiana, that doesn't work. Yet as we read here now, in Kansas, the usual stupids want more big tax cuts. While on Fox we hear a lot of squealing about socialism by people who can shriek but cannot think clearly.

Does "socialism" work? For example, in the Scandinavian countries good health care is freely available. Scandinavians do not have to worry about a serious illness bankrupting them, losing their homes and living in poverty to the end of their days with their families.
To be sure their taxes are higher than in say, Alabama, but the results are in the end, good. If we call this socialism, then the right wingers who most certainly do are the best salesmen for socialism ever.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The usual 'Not true Scotsmen' sort of argument. Great theories again? How many times do you wanh to try them?

The definition of Socialism is collective ownership of the means of production. It isn't the welfare state. In practice the collective ownership is exercised by the government. Calling what I wrote "No True Scotsman" is, well, ... suppose you have a man who was born and raised in Japan. As were his ancestors for at least 30 generations. He looks and speaks Japanese. His DNA test comes back and says while he has a tiny bit of Chinese or Korean he has absolutely no European. Would you say he is a Scotsman? Apparently yes. The usual "No False Scotsman" sort of argument.

We tried laissez faire capitalism and it doesn't work well. Communism Soviet style doesn't work. The problem is far right types braying about socialism when what we have is nothing like socialism. We see that when we give the laissez faire capitalist reactionaries free reign such as we saw in the Bush years, Kansas, and Louisiana, that doesn't work. Yet as we read here now, in Kansas, the usual stupids want more big tax cuts. While on Fox we hear a lot of squealing about socialism by people who can shriek but cannot think clearly.

Does "socialism" work? For example, in the Scandinavian countries good health care is freely available. Scandinavians do not have to worry about a serious illness bankrupting them, losing their homes and living in poverty to the end of their days with their families.
To be sure their taxes are higher than in say, Alabama, but the results are in the end, good. If we call this socialism, then the right wingers who most certainly do are the best salesmen for socialism ever.

The FDIC is the only reason why there wasn't a run on the banks in '08.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

So just as "socialism" can mean "social safety net", "laissez faire" means "tax cuts".

 

[untermensche]

Socialism is succeeding everywhere.

Do you have a list?

I suspect our definitions of both socialism and capitalism differ greatly.

You can argue about definitions.

But socialism is what makes life worth living for the majority.

Capitalism makes it worth living for a few and misery for most.

All that is good about US society in terms of working conditions was done by socialists. From the 8 hour day and the 40 hour week to Medicare and Social Security. Some nations do better than the US.

Capitalists fought these things violently and killed and injured many people.

Capitalism is about a tiny elite of wealth controlling all others.

It leads to oligarchy and away from freedom.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Socialism is succeeding everywhere.

Do you have a list?

I suspect our definitions of both socialism and capitalism differ greatly.

You can argue about definitions.

But socialism is what makes life worth living for the majority.

Capitalism makes it worth living for a few and misery for most.

Tigers!, he just gave you his definition. "If it works, it is socialism. If it doesn't, it is capitalism."

 

[arkirk]

You can argue about definitions.

But socialism is what makes life worth living for the majority.

Capitalism makes it worth living for a few and misery for most.

Tigers!, he just gave you his definition. "If it works, it is socialism. If it doesn't, it is capitalism."

If it stands a chance of working it is socialism, fella. Your idea is just let the biggest bullies run things. That clearly doesn't work.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

You can argue about definitions.

But socialism is what makes life worth living for the majority.

Capitalism makes it worth living for a few and misery for most.

Tigers!, he just gave you his definition. "If it works, it is socialism. If it doesn't, it is capitalism."

If it stands a chance of working it is socialism, fella. Your idea is just let the biggest bullies run things. That clearly doesn't work.

That's an interesting version of "my" idea.

 

[untermensche]

You can argue about definitions.

But socialism is what makes life worth living for the majority.

Capitalism makes it worth living for a few and misery for most.

Tigers!, he just gave you his definition. "If it works, it is socialism. If it doesn't, it is capitalism."

Not a definition.

An observation.

Hiding your head in the sand as multi-nationals gain more and more power over governments is a weak argument.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

If it stands a chance of working it is socialism, fella. Your idea is just let the biggest bullies run things. That clearly doesn't work.

That's an interesting version of "my" idea.

That it is. Your idea... well... in general, your espoused ideas on economics are derivatives of "That isn't what I think" and "I've never said that."

 

[arkirk]

You can argue about definitions.

But socialism is what makes life worth living for the majority.

Capitalism makes it worth living for a few and misery for most.

Tigers!, he just gave you his definition. "If it works, it is socialism. If it doesn't, it is capitalism."

Not a definition.

An observation.

Hiding your head in the sand as multi-nationals gain more and more power over governments is a weak argument.

Jason Harvestdancer just cannot understand. It isn't a contest between Capitalism (an economic theory that empowers only the rich) and socialism (any number of different attempts at governance -- some good, some not so good). There is no contest between the two. Capitalism simply is only a partial system of economics and only favors the few who manage to sew up some market somewhere and charge rent or get cheap laborers to do their work. It provides no answers to social problems. Capitalism is a system of arrangements between people with money and power and places no importance on the common citizen's well being. Some forms of capitalism have called themselves socialism but in the end have really just been capitalism wearing a mask. Democracy is required and that democracy must be informed by science and education of all the people on how to protect the neutrality of government. We all know this. Some have given up. There really is no reason to give up. It has been a long hard slog for so many people when all the resources are "owned" by a few self interested people.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

The usual 'Not true Scotsmen' sort of argument. Great theories again? How many times do you wanh to try them?

The definition of Socialism is collective ownership of the means of production. It isn't the welfare state. In practice the collective ownership is exercised by the government. Calling what I wrote "No True Scotsman" is, well, ... suppose you have a man who was born and raised in Japan. As were his ancestors for at least 30 generations. He looks and speaks Japanese. His DNA test comes back and says while he has a tiny bit of Chinese or Korean he has absolutely no European. Would you say he is a Scotsman? Apparently yes. The usual "No False Scotsman" sort of argument.

Are you such a die-hard capitalist that you can't give credit of the welfare state to anything else other than capitalism? Wow.

Come on, throw logic a bone once in a while.