I’m almost convinced the appeal of Socialism lies in a cognitive error that one can produce more by merely expanding production systems forever without the accompanied productivity loss(es). That’s just my thought on it, but maybe I’m wrong.
Or that anything is possible with fiat?
Pretty much.
I don’t know if you have raised children, but one important lesson that must be instilled in them is not to employ violence against other children to resolve their conflicts. That is to say, instinctively children will attempt to use physical force to achieve their ends. The role of the good parent is to correct this behavior with one that sober adults consider to be more civilized, refraining from the use of force, because such choices pay off over the long term, while the use of physical force pays off immediately.
That is what I meant when I said that humans are socialistic by their primitive nature. If you were to abandon a large group of children on a deserted island, there is no guarantee that a division of labor would emerge, despite the obvious benefits (to those of us who understand the division of labor).
There are two large reasons that the rich support communism and it has nothing to do with conformity. Quite the opposite. Rich people generally think that their opinions are more important than everyone else’s. That alone is the basis for being a social engineer, as in my case when I was a Stalinist. It also helps substantially that the most affluent people are the least affected by the negative consequences of systematic changes. No matter what happens to the lower-middle class, no matter how hard recession and oppression is for everyone else, George Soros will still have everything. Maybe after the smoke clears in a crash he will have $1b more than he could ever spend rather than $2b more than he could ever spend. Meanwhile, Joe Punchclock was wiped out. Simply put, the rich can afford to be stupid and bumbling. It’s all the same to them.
I’d back this up. My daughter understands “mine” completely. She has a much harder time understanding “yours.”
lol. And of course the wise ‘natural elites’ must teach the proletarians what justice is…
you don’t think children need to be actively civilised at all?
I didn’t say “at all”. I’m only pointing out that the notion that children are natural savages is ridiculous.
Here’s a classic, it’s both collectivistic and conservative, though it has some libertarian elements in it (Adam Ferguson - so called Scottish enlightenment )
I thought a lot about this and thanks to Stranger I can now say, that if there is one thing which can be called an instinct to socialism it is the instinct to do battle. It seems that if we are attacked and this causes physical pain it becomes, depending on how great the pain is, almost reflexive to fight back. Still though, if instincts do cause socialism they cause it only as a canvass can be said to cause a painting because the will to socialism is also greatly affected by choice. I’m not sure if natural selection could work on reason since there could be many different reasons for expressing the same behavior (being a coward and being prudent are both good ways to ensure your survival and thus your potential to produce offspring) so the evolution of reason is something that I don’t understand.
I heard though, that some human-like creatures (the neanderthals) mated with us back in the day and that their society was genetically ordained to socialism, so maybe our breeding with them passed on their propensity to the state to us.
Fallacies, Evasion, Irrationality. Ect.
An interesting quote (paraphrased) from a person getting to know the russian peasents in the USSR. “They would rather all starve then see they’re neighbor be better off then themselves”
I think there is a qualitative difference between instinctual and reasoned responses. And instinct does not see anything more than the present and the immediate future. I think the ability to see ones life from afar–to consider the future ramification of your actions as well as there remote effects in the present, is a fundamental characteristic of man that is opposed to his “animal” nature.
Might one say, then, that socialism is instincual in the sense that it is the view adopted by those who do not look beyond the immediate effects?
I might ad that long term ramifications may include psychological costs, such as remorse and regret after committing the crime of expropriation that socialism entails.
Of course, there are many socialists who claim to choose socialism precisely for what they see to be it’s long term effects, i.e. communistic utopia, so I don’t know.
I think humans have some kind of tendency toward self-destructive and anti-social behavior, a tendency that we must combat with reason. Over-eating, alcoholism, adultery, losing one’s temper, impatience, laziness, are all examples of tendencies that I think we all must struggle to resist, at least to some degree. We can use “reason” to rationalize and excuse these behaviors, or reason can be our means of escape and the path toward greater fulfillment.
I guess to err is human, right?
For some reason, I feel as though evolution should have eliminated tendencies toward error. Apparently it has not.
This apparently includes reason itself. Not only can we reject reason in order to follow instinct, but we can reason incorrectly, either from false information or invalid processes.
Why does this seem strange? Why would evolution produce creatures with reason bot not the ability to use it properly and consistently to draw the right conclusions? In any case, I guess it has.
And so socialism is popular.
You are presuming to know what evolution’s ultimate end (objective function) is, and more importantly, you are also presuming that it must be the same as yours. In reality, it is likely that evolution defines “error” differently from you and I, and it is never wrong.
Through mankind’s history, it has been easier to gather armies and flocks of sheep under a single banner among people with certain “flockability” characteristics vs. people with individualistic “ponderability” characteristics. Individualists hate banners and flocks of all sorts, by definition. Thus it is conceivable that societies and cultures with higher “flockability” coefficients have consistently overpowered (over-run) societies with not enough “flockability” (and too much “ponderability”) in them. The “flockable” winners consistently ended up with the loot (including the women) with which they procreated, making the individualist gene pool among men ever smaller. Thus here we stand today.
An ant colony, or The Borg are by no means optimal for individualistic freedom, but can be pretty optimal for other things that would sustain their existence for a very long time.
Z.
Yep. Collectivists have the upper hand…at least that’s how things may look like for some positivists of the hayek variety…
I’m not sure that collectivism does provide advantage. Isn’t the essence of Mises ideas that individualism has the advantage?
The growing popularity of socialism, and the Borg, say resistence is futile. But they won’t take me without a fight.
I really think it is a combination of envy, laziness, and a lack of self responsibility. I want it as good as you have, but I don’t want to have to work as hard.
If freedom is the path to greater human fulfillment (and I believe it is)
I’m not sure it is. When I manufacture a widget, the subjective preferences of market participants impute value to my widget-making activity. This causes me to make fewer or more widgets. But no value is imputed when when people procreate: today, people usually can’t be owned as property. And we all know how a lack of property rights creates inefficiencies. There’s nothing to stop too many scientists from being birthed when, say, it is more basketball players which is desired. If you notice how children, invalids, and animals aren’t given freedom but are effectively owned then it isn’t a huge leap to envision adults being owned.
If a super-intelligent machine is constructed in the future, is it OK for it to memetically subjugate you, if you aren’t able to detect it and withhold consent?
If the rational enhances survival and fulfillment, then shouldn’t it win out over time through selection processes, both among individuals and populations as awhole (on large time scales)?
Wait longer.