The Philosophy of Socialism

[Autolykos]

John, thank you very much for linking that video - I found it to be a fascinating watch. What Hayek talks about resonates with me. I think he’s spot-on about the “intelligibility problem”. In fact, I’d like to take it a step further - I think many (if not most) people reject and resist that which is unintelligible to them. It might even be a universal human tendency. So for me the question becomes, what do people find intelligible and why?

With that in mind, I think Bastiat’s parable of the broken window is actually a perfect example of this issue. People quite often fail to take into account “that which is not seen”. But why? All I can offer at the moment is that it seems to be due to a lack of critical thinking. Ironically, even university-educated academics are guilty of this today. I attribute it to a highly authoritarian education schooling system that inculcates blind obedience, thereby diminishing their need to rely on critical thinking.

Interestingly enough, I’ve had the most success reaching people when I talk to them about money - how it originated and how it’s developed over time. The notion of money as simply being the most marketable commodity seems to be very intuitive for most people, if explained in terms that they can already understand (i.e. without any “jargon”). However, the implications of this might be more difficult for them to accept, for other reasons that I’ll get into later.

[Autolykos]

@Jack Roberts

Pro government information in government sanctioned syllabus and government controlled media creates anti-capitalist mentality within the population. The anti-capitalist mentality leads to socialist/marxist tendencies and a general pro government sentiment. I also think it is more often than not just a lack of alternative information.

By the time people eventually do come across alternative information, they are so set in their ideology that they lack the humility to change their entire ideology. Especially as it often requires changing your ideology to the complete opposite. It also makes it more difficult to change your ideology to one that is in direct contrast to your current ideology. It is one thing to change your ideology but it is something else to change it to an ideology that is directly opposite to your current ideology.

I noticed this when explaining opposition towards IP and patent law to people in conversation. My arguments were often in direct contradiction to their arguments. They would say that IP helps innovation and I would explain how IP does not help innovation. I would explain how IP creates monopolies and they would argue that IP helps competition. This would go on with all their arguments, often requiring them to change their opinion to the direct opposite to what they held. This is not always the case with all topics, some topics people have a similar argument it is only slightly mistaken.

This is why, when people are able to understand something, they may still reject and resist it. Basically this is the sunk-cost fallacy. “I’ve believed in X for so long/my entire life, I can’t give it up now!” People don’t want to feel like they’ve wasted so much time and effort on something that turned out to be an illusion. Unfortunately, I think this is an innate human tendency. Enhancement of critical thinking skills could help though.

[bloomj31]

@Caley McKibbin

One is the narcissistic jerk that wants to stamp everyone else into his own image. The other is the mediocre man that can’t visualize his own rise to the upper class. They are personality opposites and take a different view of their own role and the role of others. The former sees himself as an administrator of the system. The latter sees himself as a beneficiary.

I actually feel like I alternate between these two viewpoints. At once I have the desire for power and on the other hand I have a distinct feeling I’ll never get it because I know I’m not particularly exceptional in any of the relevant fields.

Anyways, there is some difficulty in determining whether or not I’m a net beneficiary to socialism in America though I tend to think I am. Unfortunately I really don’t know where the break even point is on government services vs taxation level.

[Cortes]

I’ve noticed that a lot of liberals apparently don’t even understand what socialism implies half of the time. By this I mean how so many panties get in a bunch whenever someone describes Bush, Obama’s policies as socialist. I’ve even had the pleasure of being told that socialized healthcare isn’t socialist.

It’s that type of confused liberalism that gets incredibly defensive and uncomfortable realizing the implications of their own ideas.