The strange appeal of socialism. Why?

Miscellaneous General
, , , ,
61

Again, advantage toward what goal? If you cannot discern evolution’s end (even if such a thing existed) then you have no basis for discerning which approach is more advantageous toward reaching it. I belive that individualism and freedom provide a fuller and more enjoyable life – for me. I have a goal (end) and individualism and freedom are advantageous toward reaching it. I only tried to explain the preponderance of the “flockability” gene in today’s human gene pool. By no means did I mean to imply that “flockability” is advantageous toward reaching my personal goals in life, or that it is something that I would prefer to my individualism. In other words, being a dumb rock sitting in the sand for million years is more advantageous toward the goal of longevity than being a pondering individualist.

Z.

62

I think we are raised on the concepts of socialism and collectivism.. Half my family spends every waking minute finding ways to control each other which usually ends up in family feuds. Despite the fact that they cannot see how their attempts at manipulating each other has lead to alienation they think the same ideas should be applied globally to all. It’s madness but it’s what we are raised on. Thats how I figure it I guess…

63

I agree, and I guess that it part of the difficulty here. Evolution selects for reproductive fitness. I suppose it is possible that that which maximizes reproductive fitness is not the same as that which maximizes subjective human fulfillment.

Yet I would think that if freedom leads to greater efficiency and productivity, then groups consisting of more freedom-minded individuals would out produce, and therefore reproduce more than others.

In addition, it would seem that individuals who were inclined toward behaviors that enhanced this kind of cultural reproductive fitness would be preferred by selective processes.

64

productivity and a propensity to freedom are probably not heritable. But neither is a tendency towards socialism in my opinion.

65

And do we have reason to believe that evolution can actually tinker with reason itself, with the laws of logic? Certainly it could make adjustments to instinctual and subconscious inclinations and behaviors. It would seem that the human sex drive may change over time as a result of evolutionary pressures, but could it change the way that humans reason such that they would tend to reach different conclusions?

It does not seem so. The laws of logic apply across categories of facts. They seem to apply to all aspects of nature, universally. Through mathematics we seem to be able to apply them beyond the experience of any human. They seem to reflect the nature of reality itself. If that is the case, then they would not be changed by evolution.

But this leads back to the question that’s been nagging me: Why does logic seem to lead some people to socialism?

And maybe it gives me the answer: It doesn’t. Something else leads them to socialism, whether it be faulty logic, false premises, intellectual laziness, a disposition toward animalistic behavior, or ignorance of the power of reason and the will.

And there is that strange idea… the will. Maybe evolution can’t mold logic, but can evolution mold the will to use logic? Can it weaken the will to use logic relative to the will to follow instinct? Can it predispose someone against long-term perspectives and big picture considerations? Can genetics affect our will?

Why would evolution select for reason but against its use (or proper use)?

It’s probably safe to assume it wouldn’t.

And yet we have individuals who gravitate toward the use of reason and human will over instinct, and we also have individuals who go the other way. Why?

Why does one son live wisely and another becomes a prodigal?

Either these are genetic defects, or they are due to harmful environmental influences (but this would imply a genetic weakness that was being exploited), or these factors interact with information through the reasoning process in ways that cannot be predicted, or people have free will that cannot be determined by these factors.

In any case, evolution would not ensure the proper use of reason, and so we need not expect that humans would tend toward more liberty and away from socialism, since they may always be prone to error, as seems evident when we view other aspects of their lives.

The choice for socialism may involve genetic tendencies, but it also may involve interactions between these tendencies, environmental influences, and information through the process of reasoning in complex and unpredictible ways.

Unless evolution weakens the animal urges relative to reasoned response, we would not expect a natural movement away from self-destructive behaviors like socialism. So there is no reason to believe that present trends toward socialism indicate an evolutionary preference for that system or that socialism is built into humanity.

Sorry, I’m just thinking “out loud”.

66

If you are really curious; which you seem to be. I suggest finding a forum populated by evolutionary psychologists and the like; and solicit their opinions.

67

that’s liberty for ya

the choice to fail, prosper, and take the risk that either one of these might happen.

68

William Green: If you are interested in musings on how evolution could have shaped animal minds into human minds, I couldn’t recommend a better book than Daniel Dennett’s Kinds of Minds. A truly awesome book linking evolutionary theory to the philosophies of mind and knowledge. I find it in many ways very compatible with Austrian perspectives on epistemology.

After reading that one Nassim Taleb’s idea that we are predisposed to seeing the concrete(what is seen) while being pretty bad at seeing the abstract(what is not seen) seemed a lot more plausible. Abstract concepts have proliferated very rapidly in a short space of time - most of our evolutionary existence as a seperate species was spent in a state where the concrete and immediate, Bastiat’s “what is seen” was our main concern. The abstract didn’t really impinge on our existence, certainly not to the degree to which it does today.

We may only have been able to leverage the abstract as a tool for survival and prosperity for less than 10.000 years. Think about that. That we aren’t really good at it as a species should not come as a great surprise.

Now all of this depends on whether you take the theory of evolution seriously. If you do not for whatever reason, religious or otherwise, your milage may vary.

69

Perhaps we’re really evolutionarily figuring it out. We all need to have a bunch of children, that’s what we gotta do… yeah. [;)]

70

“The Strange Appeal of Socialism. Why?”. A simple explanation: 1) Naiveté, 2) The desire to have our needs provided for by someone else, 3) The desire to control others, 4) The desire to blame others for our own failures.

Under freedom, naiveté evaporates as we must view our place in the world as it really is. Our desire is to provide for ourselves. We do not center our lives on controlling others, ie, we mind our own business and want to be left alone. We take responsibility for our own failures.

A child who does not experience this paradigm shift, ie, the shift from “child” to “adult”, desires socialism instead of freedom. Without this shift away from “childhood” (at the appropriate age), it does not matter whether the person is an hourly wage earner or a Phd in economics from Princeton; numbers 1 through 4 will apply.

So, why is it that some people choose freedom but most people want socialism? The explanation may be that most people simply can’t take care of themselves. Under freedom, their needs would be met by voluntary charitable organizations, funded by those who are inclined to do so. Under socialism, the “promise” that all needs will be met is believed by those who can be described by the above.

Is this explanation too simple? It probably is.

71

all you people are confusing socialist with communism or compulsory charity. under marxian socialism all able to work have to work. the opposite is true in a free marker. one can rely on others charity or feed on wild berries if he wants to - he is free to do as he pleases.

72

I pretty much agree to this.

73

I like this. I have a teenage son who is struggling with responsibility. At the same time he finds himself drawn toward socialism. I don’t think the concurrence is coincidental. He also seems to be unsure of whether freedom will really work.

74

The best way to get people to care about such ideas is to tie them into an understanding of how it affects them personally.

75

I think the reason people tend to like socialism is because it seems to be more humane, more friendly. It promises shelter to the weak, blankets to the cold, and equality. Of course capitalism and freedom gives people the best lives, and it is fair, nevertheless people do not look at the results of socialism, they only hear the beautiful words.

We have to educate the ignorant, even though it seems to be like teaching the blind to see the rays of light.

76

Individualism has the advantage. I mean, take a look at all of us! :stuck_out_tongue:

People here are able to consistently reason and solve problems in their life. Collectivists, for the most part, just want to offload work to other people. If everyone owned everyone else’s stuff, I’d never work and most other people wouldn’t, either. Individualists, on the other hand, use ricardian comparative advantage to do what they’re better at and like more, and exchanging for things they have more trouble getting. In the end, the individualists have more, the collectivists have less.

I don’t see where collectivists have the advantage. As much as I’d like to see the state abolished, most people are still for individual freedom (even if it contradicts their other beleifs)