Socialism Is Always Doomed to Fail

[Trausti]

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.

 

[Axulus]

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.

And part of the reason they fail so horrifically is that an authoritarian system with a very powerful central government is always necessary to enforce the collectivization or social ownership since it is counter to human nature. Later, such unchecked power inevitably leads to corruption and looting as those in power realize they can get away with it and must give goodies to key allies (like the military) to maintain that power.

 

[Juma]

You have still not grasped the difference betwee socialism and communism?

 

[LordKiran]

You have still not grasped the difference betwee socialism and communism?

Its because to him, any and all socialist policy is always and forever bad, even though democratic government is fundamentally a social institution

 

[Trausti]

You have still not grasped the difference betwee socialism and communism?

Ah, and so the war against nature will continue.

 

[laughing dog]

You have still not grasped the difference betwee socialism and communism?

That requires an ability to detect nuance and to reason.

 

[4321lynx]

You have still not grasped the difference betwee socialism and communism?

That requires an ability to detect nuance and to reason.

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

Or are you talking about theory only?

 

[untermensche]

Socialism is succeeding everywhere.

Capitalism is failing constantly.

Capitalism is really a state supported system. The state saves it every decade or so.

Without massive state intervention capitalism would not last very long.

 

[laughing dog]

You have still not grasped the difference betwee socialism and communism?

That requires an ability to detect nuance and to reason.

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

I don't. But I cannot speak for everyone.

Or are you talking about theory only?

No.

 

[SimpleDon]

Socialism is flawed because it relies on humans overcoming their own natures.

Capitalism is successful because it channels a normally destructive human trait, greed, to be constructive. Free market capitalism is flawed because it ignores the word "channels" and ignores who that it is who does the channeling, the government, and instead proposes that we don't need to channel greed.

Socialism and Communism have always been turned to when capitalism has failed to distribute its rewards to the greatest number of people and instead concentrate on increasing the incomes of the wealthiest in their society and tolerates a large degree of poverty in that society.

We all have lessons that we need to learn.

 

[braces_for_impact]

Is this another criticism of democratic socialism as if it's communism? Maybe you should go tell someone that cares...I think there's a communist or two still on this board.

 

[RVonse]

Whatever China is doing at present seems to be right. Its not really capitalism nor communism but it is obviously working. They alone have the booming economy, no race riots, no graffiti on the walls, and clean streets. All this is happening with a population density that should have them living in squalor. The main difference I see between China and the US is that the Chinese government seems to actually care about the population. They have somehow managed not to become corrupted. In contrast, only 3% of the US population has confidence their government is working for their best interest.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I think it is funny. The global economy collapsed into a pile of ashes in 2008... because of capitalistic greed. The only thing that saved it were governments banded together, ate bad debt, and made a lot of significant changes, and printed a lot of money.

And people want to whine on about the ills of socialism. Capitalism failed in 2008 Every bank in the US was doomed. Socialism is hardly perfect and the best economic system is a blend of capitalism and socialism, but to read people going on about an economic system that would have collapsed if not for an incredible government intervention is fucking hilarious!

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

The op abstract is really about property ownership under certain conditions, i.e. territorial inference of property ownership. It doesn't actually contradict public property ownership in some other instances or universal healthcare.

Here is some more data, also not completely on-target for scope of op title claim or its refutation: babies cry when they need to be changed knowing someone will come help them; social animals in many instances take care of children. The most intelligent social animals seem to do more, whales, dolphins, elephants; chimpanzee tribes have public property like fruit trees in their territory and will chase other tribes away from their fruit.

Therefore, socialism.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Whatever China is doing at present seems to be right. Its not really capitalism nor communism but it is obviously working. They alone have the booming economy, no race riots, no graffiti on the walls, and clean streets. All this is happening with a population density that should have them living in squalor. The main difference I see between China and the US is that the Chinese government seems to actually care about the population. They have somehow managed not to become corrupted. In contrast, only 3% of the US population has confidence their government is working for their best interest.

Are there two countries named "China"??

Booming economy? It's a Potemkin economy. The government is obsessed with maintaining a 7% growth rate--and doing so through insane level of borrowing. Sooner or later they are going to have a major crash.

No race riots? Agreed--how the government would react to a race riot keeps such things from happening. Plenty of racism, though. I've got some relatives over there that I doubt I'll ever meet--because a relative doesn't want it known that my wife is married to a non-Chinese. (They know she's married to an American but think I'm ethnic Chinese.) I've had multiple people think it's unsafe for us to travel to certain areas--the only reason being the locals aren't Han.

No graffiti?

1) Labor is a lot cheaper over there, the cost of cleaning it up is a lot lower--you would expect a lot less.

2) I've seen a lot of it, although it's almost always advertising.

Clean streets?

Again, labor is a lot cheaper over there. Despite that, I've seen plenty of junk on the streets and even more so out on the highways (where cleaning them would be a lot harder.)

Squalor?

I've never seen the really bad areas. However, what I have seen:

1) Entire dwellings that were roughly 12' square.

2) Dwellings where water & sewer were added after the fact and only outside the house. (Their only water is an outdoor sink.) Electricity was likewise after the fact but apparently internal. (Toilets and trash were at communal points--and I saw lots of guys urinating into any waterways.)

3) A "toilet" at a bus stop--the men's at least was simply an area with a retaining wall. I saw nothing of how it drained or was emptied--and it most certainly needed emptying. Most of the feces there looked like they had been rather urgent. Be glad I have no way of reproducing the smell.

Chinese government care about the people?

Only if that doesn't interfere with the rich and powerful--and it usually does.

Not corrupted?



It's all about what you can get away with. Corruption is at pandemic levels. Virtually everyone in their equivalent of Congress is a billionaire--money they got while in office. How else could that be but corruption?

 

[LordKiran]

Whatever China is doing at present seems to be right. Its not really capitalism nor communism but it is obviously working. They alone have the booming economy, no race riots, no graffiti on the walls, and clean streets. All this is happening with a population density that should have them living in squalor. The main difference I see between China and the US is that the Chinese government seems to actually care about the population. They have somehow managed not to become corrupted. In contrast, only 3% of the US population has confidence their government is working for their best interest.

Are there two countries named "China"??

Booming economy? It's a Potemkin economy. The government is obsessed with maintaining a 7% growth rate--and doing so through insane level of borrowing. Sooner or later they are going to have a major crash.

No race riots? Agreed--how the government would react to a race riot keeps such things from happening. Plenty of racism, though. I've got some relatives over there that I doubt I'll ever meet--because a relative doesn't want it known that my wife is married to a non-Chinese. (They know she's married to an American but think I'm ethnic Chinese.) I've had multiple people think it's unsafe for us to travel to certain areas--the only reason being the locals aren't Han.

No graffiti?

1) Labor is a lot cheaper over there, the cost of cleaning it up is a lot lower--you would expect a lot less.

2) I've seen a lot of it, although it's almost always advertising.

Clean streets?

Again, labor is a lot cheaper over there. Despite that, I've seen plenty of junk on the streets and even more so out on the highways (where cleaning them would be a lot harder.)

Squalor?

I've never seen the really bad areas. However, what I have seen:

1) Entire dwellings that were roughly 12' square.

2) Dwellings where water & sewer were added after the fact and only outside the house. (Their only water is an outdoor sink.) Electricity was likewise after the fact but apparently internal. (Toilets and trash were at communal points--and I saw lots of guys urinating into any waterways.)

3) A "toilet" at a bus stop--the men's at least was simply an area with a retaining wall. I saw nothing of how it drained or was emptied--and it most certainly needed emptying. Most of the feces there looked like they had been rather urgent. Be glad I have no way of reproducing the smell.

Chinese government care about the people?

Only if that doesn't interfere with the rich and powerful--and it usually does.

Not corrupted?



It's all about what you can get away with. Corruption is at pandemic levels. Virtually everyone in their equivalent of Congress is a billionaire--money they got while in office. How else could that be but corruption?

I think the most amazing thing about the chinese economy is how such grand-scale efficaciousness can be paired with such tremendous waste like we see in China. People think America is wasteful, yet The Chinese government puts tons of resources into building cities nobody even lives in.

 

[laughing dog]

Socialism is not incompatible with private property, so OP seems to be confused. As for something human system doomed for failure, given the right length of time, any system is doomed to fail.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

You have still not grasped the difference betwee socialism and communism?

That requires an ability to detect nuance and to reason.

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?

 

[Ford]

I find myself agreeing with Loren. China is an example of the worst of a "market economy" without all that pesky democracy gumming up the system.

They're a hopelessly corrupt totalitarian state with a veneer of capitalism. And they just declared their president gets to keep his job for life.

 

[untermensche]

What China clearly shows is that capitalism has no connection to democracy.