Talk:Socialism/Archive 6

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

two issues

first of all someone added anarchism under libertarian socialism when it is definitly not a form of libertarian socialism, secondly I think it would be good if some people volunteered to search wikipedia for all metions of forms of socialism for this article (in this vein I added a subsection to utopian socialism and democratic socialism as well as several new non marx based socialism and two new marxist based ones if you feel that one of these is innapropriate please bring it up before discussion if you decide to delete it)- Konulu

anarcho-socialism

There was a link to libertarian socialism followed by a link to anarcho-socialism both lead to the same page so I deleted libertarian socialism. I also added titoism to the list of marxist based philosophys- Konulu

Definitions

I actually think there should be a separate series for Captalism vs. Socialism vs. Free Market vs. Command Economy vs. Planned Economy vs. Decentralized Economies vs. Mixed Economies, as their definitions are somewhat intertwined.

I got out my econ notes from a while back, I'm basically wanting to check these defintions before going forward with intertwining the articles:

There are two different ways to catergorize an economy into two.

Little Regulation Heavy Regulation

and

Low Government Expenditure High Government Expenditure

Heavy regulation AND high government expenditure are command economies, heavily regulated economies are planned (price wages enforced by the Nazis for example (although I didn't mean the example to be so extreme)), little regulation is decentralized, low government expenditure is capitalist, high government expenditure is socialist, and free market is both low government expenditure and little regulation.

Note that these are very subjective, and are not as simple as saying "Above 50% government expenditure as a portion of the GDP is socialist," because France has above 50% government expenditure as a portion of GDP and some people refer to it as Capitalist and some as Socialist. Similarly the argument goes for little and heavy regulation, some may say that the U.S. is decentralized while others are extreme enough to say it's a planned economy, the difference in opinion comes from the subjectivity of the two terms (I, for example, say that the U.S. is a planned economy because I'm pissed off and opposed to the regulations on power companies; but that's my opinion). China considers itself Socialist, while many other consider it Capitalist. Some consider the Soviet Union Capitalist because of it's Black Market activities. And so on.

In other words:

Little Regulation AND low government expenditure=Free Market Economy

Little Regulation=Decentralized Heavy Regulation=Planned

and

Low Government Expenditure=Capitalist High Government Expenditure=Socialist

High government Expenditure AND heavy Regulation=Command Economy

Oh! And a mixed economy is any economy that is thought of as a mix between socialist and Capitalist, technically this is all countries, but it is also a subjective factor (Subjective in that the percentiles aren't really placed, it's not like below 10% government expenditure is Capitlist, from 10-90 is mixed, and Socialist is >90). Fephisto 16:18, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Albanianism?

I have NEVER in my LIFE heard or seen Hoxhaism refered to as 'Albanianism', bearing in mind that I am a Communist, have had contact with a number of self proclaimed Hoxhaists and I actually own several of Hoxha's books (rants, whatever you wish to call them). The policy of Albania was directed and laid down by Hoxha almost exclusively, although it was never decribed by him as Hoxhaism (he saw himself as simply continuing the Marxist-Leninist legacy) his particular brand of Communism has been labelled Hoxhaism, a label accepted by the majority of parties around the world that seek to impliment his policies in their countries.

For this reason it should be called Hoxhaism and 'Albanianism' should be got rid of completely

Very false Thanks for picking up on that, Anonymous editor. The ideology is, indeed, called Hoxhaism. Albanianism is a neologism. El_C 00:58, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

NPOV

This article is far too pro-socialistic for it to be on Wikipedia. If the article discusses the benefits of socialism (namely ways which socialism is "solving" problems), and provides links to pro-socialist arguments, then it should also have a section describing the shortcomings of socialism, and real-world examples where socialism fails to meet its objectives.

I think the best course of action would be to eliminate both the pro and anti socialist arguments, including the two sections of offsite links, and replace them with documented occurences of successes or failures of socialist principle in the real world. Arguments for and against it shouldn't be eliminated entirely, but should be in equal proportion, and should not be the focus of external links - let us keep it in perspective.

An uninformed reader is likely to be affected by the bias of the article, especially because of the quantity of pro-socialist dogma within the article and external links. Readers of Wikipedia should be able to form their own opinions regarding socialism, rather than be spoonfed a gross imbalance of opinion and theory. Kp7 08:39, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

This isn't an NPOV dispute. If you feel the article is lacking in content or quality you are welcome to contribute and make improvements as you see fit (or in discussion with others). If you believe there are specific incidents of bias in the article, you need to cite them. I have removed the tag.--cj | talk 13:49, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

ATTENTION ALL CHRISTIANS!!!!

User:Hu, who creates articles in PAGANISM, is attempting to revert my addition to this article stating the TRUTH. The FACTS that SOCIALISTS/COMMUNISTS oppose god, and hate Christians. THERE ARE MANY SOCIALISTS ON THIS SITE. Stand by the truth, and STOP the liberal secularists from hiding thier lies! User:Koool 04:40, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Shouting doesn't earn you respect. Misrepresenting doesn't earn you respect. Animism is not paganism, as you try to make out. You have no idea about my religious beliefs and in any case, my beliefs and your beliefs don't matter. What does matter is that Wikipedia depends and insists on Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Hu 05:05, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Let's try to avoid generalizing everything here. Socialism goes beyond the writings of marx and the like so lets not take something they wrote to be in direct correlation with modern socialism. An on a perhaps more bias note, what do you think opposes God more: a government and economy driven by greed strong enough to put two thirds of the world in poverty and intend to keep it that way OR a government and economy based on closing the gap between the gluttunous rich and the starving/dying? I think I know what Jesus would do...

CIA and death squads

This article states that: "The CIA assisted Saddam Hussein with death squads, effectively wiping out the Iraqi communists."

This is a pretty serious accusation, one that definately needs to be backed up by some sort of citating

Definition should include exploitation condition

Currently, the definition is unsatisfactory. By the present definition, a society predominently consisting of for-profit partnerships (or even corporations) could be socialist. I think there is a second condition in addition to the society should exist in which popular collectives control the means of power condition. Condition two is: a belief in some exploitation theory, i.e. that value comes only from labor. It could be phrased differently, but some kind of exploitation condition is necessary. Individualist anarchists hold to this second condition but not the first, so probably should not be on the socialism tree chart at all. Though they called themselves "socialist", they used a "cost is the limit of price" definition of socialism. They were for private property, so were not socialist by the modern definition. Hogeye 17:05, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

- I agree that socialism must include a remedy for the exploitation of labor in capitalism. Marx's conceptions of surplus value and alienation describe the problem of exploitation, I'd say, and certainly no society can be called socialist if it doesn't address it. -

Genocide, crimes

The text does not contain words Genocide and Crimes. Both are characteristic for many forms of Socialism. The article is terribly biased. Xx236 11:53, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Well if we're going to do that we should put the words sweat shops, child labour and violations of human rights under capitalism and the like... just because attrocities were committed under a government subscribing to certain political ideologies does not mean those acts were a direct result or product of those ideologies. Im sure glad you arent writing our history books... - Tim

Typical leftist propaganda :) Dullfig

Tim is right. You wouldn't out the Holocaust in here, even those Hitler called himself a National Socialist. This article refers to Socialism the theory and practise, not the abuse of it's symbolism. - Yixian

Private Property

Socialism denies the existence of private property. Period. They try to apeal to class warfare with carefully chosen words like "the means of production are in the hands of the people", but this is just double talk which translates into: if everyone owns the means of production, no one does!

It sounds very noble when they say "it prevents the concentration of wealth in the hands of a few"; but this is only half the truth. Think about it: if the rich don't own the means of production, it also means that so do the poor!

Suppose you live in a truly socialist society. You are having trouble making ends meet. So you think to yourself "every one I know says my homemade tacos are just amazing. I'm going to set up a small stand in front of my house and sell them!" WRONG! you do not own the means of production. You are not the owner of your work.

Yes you are the owner of your work. The means of production consist in this case of the small stand in front of your house, plus whatever tools you use for making the tacos. Most forms of socialism are not opposed to self-employment (which is what you are describing). Rather, they are opposed to you hiring other people to make tacos for you and then selling those tacos at a profit. -- Nikodemos (f.k.a. Mihnea) 09:10, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Ultimately, to deny the right to own the means of production, means you do not own your life. you have no rigth to life. When you say you have a right, it also means you have a right to exercise that right. It is meaningless to say you have the right to life, but you have no right to do anything to support that right.

Dullfig 01:03, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Since the poor do not own the means of production in a capitalist society, then, by your own logic, we would have to conclude that the poor have no right to life under capitalism. -- Nikodemos (f.k.a. Mihnea) 09:10, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

If everyone owns the means of production, personal wealth is no longer the primary aim of society. Capitalism represents a pathalogical obsession with material wealth, is is inherently exploitational. Hence the two are opposites.

Please, Dullfig, stop getting socialism wrong :rollseyes: - Yixian

Let's see if I can explain myself better:

Each human has a finite life. No one knows how much time they have left. And the time you spend doing something, no one else can replace. So far with me?

Suppose you go out to your back yard, pick up some mud, knead it, shape it into a pot, fire it over a fire; you've made yourself a pot. Suppose it took you all day. Now I come along and tell you: "you already have a pot, and I don't. I need one more than you do, so I'm going to take your pot". Would that be fair? no, it wouldn't because you spent the time, not me.

Most animals survive by simply taking from nature what they need. Humans don't. We spend our own time and energy and intellect into surviving. Making anything useful takes time and energy, time and energy that no one will be able to give back to you. If you spend your own time on doing something, and that time is gone FOREVER, should you not get to keep that thing ?!

That is what private property means. Ownership of the means of production is just a convoluted way of saying if you spend your time on doing something, and since no one can give that time back to you, you should get to keep the fruit of that time and labor.

- Way, way wrong. Most creatures, from insects, birds and fish to horses, apes and homo sapiens, survive by belonging to a group, adopting the group's norms, and contributing to the group's survival and reproduction. The individual survives in the group. If they behave only in their private interest, they are expelled from the group and die.

And except for homo sapiens, they show little evidence of private ownership. They'll defend a nest, which we would regard as private property, but only if they are using it. I suppose you could say they cling to the group because they aren't capable of surviving on their own, but, then, how many humans could survive totally on their own? -

Some people will squander their time on earth. Time will go by, one day they look back, and all they have done is sit around and complain that everyone else around them was successful, and they weren't. Who's fault is that?

Dullfig

The problem is, most of the things we use in our daily lives are not simple pots. They are complex artefacts created through the collective effort of many workers. But sticking with your pot analogy, let me ask you this: What gives you the right to take that mud and use it for your own purposes (in this case, making a pot)? Making anything useful doesn't just require your time and energy, it also requires resources - raw materials - that you must take from nature. You may have a right to your time and energy, but what gives you the right to take raw materials as you please?

You see, humans do not create matter out of nothing. They only use their labor power or their intellect to turn raw materials into useful objects. Thus, private property over any object is based upon private property over the raw materials that were used in making that object. Raw materials are extracted from the Earth, from land. As such, the existence of any private property requires private property over land. But private property over land is unjustified: no human being made the land, so why should anyone own it? Private property over land and raw materials - and, by extension, all private property - is illegitimate. -- Nikodemos (f.k.a. Mihnea) 09:10, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

John K's point below, notwithstanding, I'd like to answer Mihnea's speculative question. "No human being made the land, so why should any human own it?" Such a question sounds theistic, as if we presume that God made the land and human encroachments, i.e. claims of ownership, are blasphemous. Depends upon what theism we start with I suppose, the kind of answer we give to that.

OTOH, if inherently meaningless cosmic forces 'made' the land, then why shouldn't humans claim it? Not necesarily as a collective, as a species or as a sovereign, but as individuals or voluntary associations thereof? And, claiming it, respect one another's claims with the force of law, which is itself also human? The whole issue is, I submit, pending cosmological clarification, one for practical teleological resolution. The system of norms is best regarding land and other resource ownership which works best, and whether that best-working system is one which involves exclusivist rights isn't something to be assumed a priori one way or the other. Legitimacy should be allowed to follow from practicality.

My own view on the cosmological question Mihnea raises would be that the "making" of the land was neither theistic in the usual (western) sense nor meaninglessly mechanistic. But that however we choose to understand it, the cosmic process that 'makes' the land shouldn't prevent us from doing what is practical in order to make its harvests bountiful, and that practicality does and will continue to involve private property. But hey, who cares what I think? Nobody, least of all "lil ole me." The softball question just seemed so tempting I had to take a swing. --Christofurio 15:56, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Private property over land is based on your improvements to the land, in other words, your own work put into the land is what makes you the owner. That is how the homestead act worked. If the land is just "granted" to you by a ruler, then the ownership is defective on two accounts: you did not earn the land, and the government that gave you the land is illegitimate.

On the subject of original research or not, I agree that the article body is not the place for original research, and should only reflect current scholarly oppinion; But aren't the discussion pages just what they imply, discussion pages? Why can we not discuss the subject? -- Dullfig 17:06, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

FWIW, I submit that epistemologically you and Mihnea are in the same boat -- although I prefer your conclusions to his, I can't prefer your way of getting there. You both want to determine whether something that is, say, clay worked by human hands is private property or not. He says that since the clay came before the human, the pottery can't be property. You say that since the clay has been shaped by a human, the pottery must be property. In both cases, there are sweeping a priori principles at work that, I submit, we're better off without. Better simply to consider what system, with or without property and with what ownership rights and rules, works best, pragmatically, for a plurality of ends, and to regard that system as the right one, legitimating itself by its results a posteriori, as they say in those Latin-speaking countries. --Christofurio 21:59, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually, Christofurio, I agree with your epistemology. I was only adopting Dullfig's epistemology because I wish to prove him wrong using his own premises. You should have noticed by now that that is one of my favourite debate strategies. If I prove you wrong on my premises, then I have achieved nothing, because you may continue to disagree with my premises. But if I prove you wrong on your premises, then you have no choice but to admit that your views are inconsistent and change them. Besides, we couldn't really have a debate on the pragmatic benefits of my preferred economic system versus yours, because neither of them has been implemented anywhere yet.

So you agree with me on pragmatic epistemology, while believing it useless in reaching conclusions about economic systems? Hmmm. You don't believe that 'our' method is very useful then (which may make it self refuting). I don't believe social pragmatism to be self-refuting in that way. There's been about 5,000 years of recorded human history, and we can draw some conclusions and make reasonable extrapolations, which is what I've generally tried to do in my own moral-political reasonings. One can't reach dogmatic conclusions, but that is all to the good. --Christofurio 01:35, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I do believe that our method is useful in reaching conclusions (which is why I use it), but I do not believe it is useful in making arguments, because those 5000 years of human history are so complex that different observers may plausibly derive very different conclusions. Take you and I for example. We derive very different conclusions from our study of history. How do you think we could go about trying to persuade the other that he is mistaken? -- Nikodemos (f.k.a. Mihnea) 01:45, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand the question, nor the distinction between drawing conclusions and making arguments, nor the italicization of the latter. Sorry. --Christofurio 01:48, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Dullfig, if private property over land is based on improvements to that land, this opens up a huge can of worms:

1. What counts as "improvement"? You must either (a) have some central authority to decide what kinds of actions are "improvements", or (b) say that any action is an improvement. I'm sure you will reject option (a) because that empowers a government to distribute property. So you are left with option (b), which leads to some rather unpleasant conclusions. For instance, if an explorer finds an uninhabited forest and sets it on fire, he has performed an action on the land, which counts as an "improvement", which means that he now owns it. Also, people could claim ownership of land just by prodding it with a stick.
2. Land has no borders. Say you are an explorer who lands on a new continent. You settle down and build a farm, cultivating and improving a patch of land. How much do you own? The land that you have physically acted upon? The land you have enclosed with a fence? The land you see? The entire new continent?
3. What happens if two or more people improve the same land?
4. What happens if the land was stolen? Most land in North America, for example, was stolen from native inhabitants. Every patch of land in Europe has been bitterly disputed, fought over and stolen back and forth for centuries. Who is the rightful owner?

-- Nikodemos (f.k.a. Mihnea) 22:21, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

In the absense of a central governemnt, the driving factor behind land ownership is raw brute force. way back in prehistoric days (and not so prehistoric in tribal areas, like africa), if you wanted to take a piece of land, you just walked over there and took it. If there was people living on it, you would take out your trusty battle axe and beat them into a pulp; unless they got you first, in which case not only did you not get their land, you didn't get to keep yours either. Tough times back then.

A central government holds a monopoly on violence. Now you don't need to take out your trusty battle axe anymore. The government can say "cultivate this land for five years, and it's yours". So, I am in favor of option "a" (surprise!). The reason it works, is because once it is yours, the government can't take it away again, without compensation. Unless you live in Rhodesia... (sorry, Zimbabwe:) -- Dullfig 23:40, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

That still leaves problems 2, 3 and 4. Also, if the government can say "cultivate this land for five years, and it's yours", and if it gets to define what it means to "cultivate" or "improve", then it can also say "we gave you five years and you haven't improved the land; we're taking it back". -- Nikodemos (f.k.a. Mihnea) 00:32, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Why does being the first person there give you right to exclude others from that land?

The current Zimbabwe wasn't the one who handed out land in the first place, it was the European imperialists. By your logic every time a new government comes into power, they have the right to re-allocate all land. Infinity0 ^talk 23:51, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

How is this original research? Have you read any of Ayn Rand's books? And besides, any honest socialist will freely admit they are against private property! When the article says that "everyone owns the means of production", it is a half truth! it is a statement that is biased towards socialism. That is the point i am trying to make! Dullfig

How is that biased? Socialism is against private property, not collective property. Infinity0 ^talk 23:40, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

You brings up an important point, and that is that socialists believe that each human is indeed a tiny part of a whole body, the "collective", and only this "collective" can rightly own property. I don't think that point is being made clear in the article.

Warning: POV ahead; collectivists should skip :-)

In my oppinion, the "colective" is a fiction, there is no such thing. Many capitalists make the same mistake when they talk of the "greater good". Each human that was ever born is unique, and will never be duplicated. No human should be sacrificed to benefit others. Each minute that goes by is a minute of your life that no one can give back to you. Therefore NO ONE should have the power to decide how you are going to spend your time on earth, other than you. Your time is yours to spend however you want to. The question is not which system provides the greatest good for the greates number, but which system protects the rights of each individual, as if the individual was an end in itself, not a part of a whole. Capitalism (in my humble oppion) is the system that will alow you to do that. -- Dullfig 18:07, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, that's missing the point of socialism, so it shouldn't be in this article. But, whatever moral system you think is right, you cannot possibly justify objectively. The object of socialism is greatest good for greatest number, or something like that - completely arbitrary, but a good position to aspire to IMO. The object of individualism is rights for yourself. But, how do your rights relate to others? Have you thought about that? What if your rights are in direct conflict to another's? Pure individualist philosophy cannot answer this question, since it's not designed to; and it's also mathematically impossible to ensure absolutely everyone wins. Infinity0 ^talk 18:14, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Let's discuss this step by step. Question 1: Why do individuals have rights? On what basis, and for what purpose? You'll see where I'm going with this after you answer... -- Nikodemos (f.k.a. Mihnea) 21:43, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Oooh, oooh, let me go first. The social construct of rights (and, yes, that's what it is) is a objective recognition that any subject has its own drives, desires, and ideals, not inherently commensurable with those of other subjects. We (lovers of humanity) concede that we (instances of humanity) each have rights, and thereby we restrain ourselves from violating them, because rights-endowed beings are in the better position to fight for their own drives, desires, and ideals -- assuring, as the centuries pass, the ever-larger whole in their mutual reconciliation as a result of the great historic higgle-haggle. Question 2? --Christofurio 22:03, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Objective in what respect? Infinity0 ^talk 22:10, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Objective in precisely the sense in which the law of gravity is an objective recognition of the way masses behave. Orbits are objectively observable, different astronomers can check each others measurements, the results concur, and the mathematics as Newton laid in out (with the Einsteinian codicil) stands. In much the same sense we objectively recognive each other as bearers of subjectivity. --Christofurio 01:40, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

No, it's a description of the way masses behave. Recognition requires a subject. Without a subject, there is no such thing as "rights", hence, all notions of rights are subjective. Infinity0 ^talk 16:46, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're getting at here. Any notion of rights is subjective because it is a notion and any notion must be that of some subject? True, but some notions are of subjective things (my notion of vanilla as a better taste than chocolate) whereas other notions are of objective things (like the behavior of orbital masses). --Christofurio 17:09, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

The behaviour of orbital masses exists whether there is someone to sense it or not (assumption, yes, ok), but rights can only exist with someone to recognise them. So, you can't call them objective, even if everyone (is forced to) agree to it. Infinity0 ^talk 17:16, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

That sounds like another way of saying that rights are a social construct, which is what I said up front. Still, this social construct is what I also calld an objective recognition, by which I only meant a recognition of an objective fact -- that other peopl have hopes, fears, ideals and so forth that are just as real as my own, and that those other people's hopes fears etc. don't depend for their continued existence upon my perception. --Christofurio 20:03, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

But how are rights a "recognition" of these things? And why are only some of these feelings "recognised", such as "accumulating wealth," but not others, such as "kill"? Infinity0 ^talk 20:18, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Now, that's a very big question. Grammatically, you asked two questions but I think they come out to be one (very big) one. I can't give a short snappy answer to it, but I'll do what I can. Indeed, the absence of any short answer is a crucial part of the answer. No single abstract principle could yield us any useful casuistic scale. But we must make choices, we must live.

So I'll provide you with a slightly modified version of the brief essay you can find at my User page. Any number of abstract principles that might tell us which feelings become recognized as obligations, and which don't and can't, might be proposed. To be a mean between two extreme, to be recognized by a special intuition, to make someone happy for the present moment, to make many people happy over an indefinitely long run, to lessen pain, to add to perfection along some dimension, to harm no one, to flow from universal law, to promote the survival of the species.

None of these works. None satisfies the demands to which the others appeal. Think about Socrates and Epicurus, about Aquinas and Calvin, about Simone de Beauvoir and Schopenhauer, about Camille Paglia and Karl Marx. Think of such people as sometimes annoying, sometimes inspiring advocates of their special points of view, and each has a wonderful part in the life of our planet and our own minds. But think of any of them as a universal schoolmaster, empowered to tell all of us what we may and what we may not value -- and the shriek of dismay, or rebellion, at once escapes from your healthy breast.

History is one great higgle haggle amongst ideals of strange and tangled origins, some brain born, some derived from associations with others. Within this higgle haggle there is a direction of progress. Progress is toward the goal of reconciling the goals, it is toward the second-order ideal of working mitigating the conflicts among all the first-order ideals.

So when people say to me something like, "rights have to serve social ends," I reply that they're probably thinking about "society" as a collection of people alive now, perhaps the collection of all people alive now -- and if they are, I can't agree. Society in any useful sense is nothing so static. Indeed, we don't need the word at all. Recorded history has 5,000 years behind it, and we might reasonably hope has another 5,000 yet to go, at the end of which the human race might say with one breathe, "we are so happy and perfect we can stand it no longer" and then cosmically implode. What rights serve is forward motion for the very long haul.

Insofar as I understand the last 5,000 years at all, private property and free exchange is the way forward. Sovereignty and fixed social relations are the weight holding the species back. The former mitigate conflicts. The latter reify conflict. --Christofurio 00:35, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

All wars have been fought based on some concept of private property. Free exchange? By preventing nothing you allow others to prevent people from doing something. Society isn't static - which only means the object of rights change to serve the current one. Just like private property exists to serve capitalism; nothing else. Infinity0 ^talk 00:10, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what this means, or why its at all pertinent to what I just said. But of course, you're entitled to think me foolish, or even to think me tyrannical if it makes you happy. Society isn't static -- that was one of my points. Private property (which can't be chopped up coherently into mere possessions on the one hand and means-of-production on the other) is integral to capitalism, it "serves" capitalism in something like the sense in which my beating heart serves me. The word "service" doesn't suffice. And bravo! I'd like to keep it beating, in each case, for some time longer. --Christofurio 00:37, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't mean any offence. What I meant was that "society is not static" is not a counter-argument for "rights serve social ends". Infinity0 ^talk 00:40, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Depends on what "society" as a noun and "social" as an adjective is taken to mean. Does society have an end that it serves? Or is society the end of all ends? --Christofurio 13:38, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

People make up society. So the end of society is logically merely to serve as most people as it possibly can. And rights are a way of doing that. Infinity0 ^talk 14:25, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't see the logic that seems so commanding to you here. Indeed, the crucial term still remains undefined. Is "people make up society" supposed to be a definition of society? People 'make up' football teams, too. What's the diff between society and a football team. Society is bigger and the term doesn't imply any specific activity, right? But that still leaves me wondering: does 'society' as you use it consist of some people, but not everyone, so there are different 'societies' on the globe? Or is there only one? If there are several, are their boundaries defined by the politics of sovereign boundaries, or can they differ? If there is only one society, consisting of everybody, then do we mean everybody alive now, everybody who has ever been alive, or everybody who will ever be alive? Or something else? Whatever definition we adopt will imply a value choice.

My suspicion is that you view society as a present-tense reality, made up of people on the earth now. Because it seems that's implicit in your observation, and if so, you're simply assuming away the possibility I'm trying to get you to consider -- that the function of rights involves people not yet born, or conceived. There's a diff between assuming something to be wrong and giving a reason. --Christofurio 16:45, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Maybe it's better if I said "people ARE society". Then, society is people, and the object of society is the same as the object of people. The object of people is protected by rights. But, everyone must be treated fairly. So for maximum benefit, as much of society as possible is protected by a set of rights. Yes?

How do rights affect people not yet conceived? Infinity0 ^talk 20:00, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

As for the "people are society" stuff, you simply seem to be reasoning in a circle. Rights serve the purposes that they serve, for the people by whom these purposes are served. Quite unhelpful. Like "a chair is that which is chairlike, recognized as such by those who recognize chairs." Mihnea asked, "Why do individuals have rights? On what basis, and for what purpose?" I ofered a response which I believe went further than such word games as this.

As to how rights affect people not yet conceived ... now that is a good question. The crucial question, in fact. The sort of rights that we recognize in each other today will affect the way we act today in ways which will determine what kind of world people will be born into, or conceived into, in the future. If our view of rights leads us to leave housing construction, for instance, to the free market this will produce results very different from those of centrally planned urbanism and (I would submit) much better. Since that housing stock will be around for a long time, this will help people not yet conceived. So: the nature of the rights in which we believe relates to our beliefs about the forward movement of the human race. QED. That has been the burden of my discussion.

I'm reminded of tht section of the Communist Manifesto in which Marx and Engels discuss the historic role of capitalism, a role they regarded as valuable. The destruction of feudalism and its prerogatives, the creation of a single world market, etc. They use a poetic phrase in praising capitalism for performing this role, they say it turns "all things solid into air." The disagreement between anti-capitalist believers in progress (whatever their label) and capitalist believers in progress (whatever theirs) is, then, this one point: Has its role been accomplished fully, or does capitalism, and the system of rights it implies, still have a progressive role to play? Not a small point, but let's not lose sight of the commonality. Both points of view agree that at some moment or moments, property rights are or were justified by their function in creating progress, improving the lives of people not yet conceived, i.e. turning solids into air.

Sometimes when I tell people I'm an anarcho-capitalist, they answer that the label contradicts itself. To which I reply, "okay, I'm a capitalist progressive, then." To which they reply that this alternative label has the same problem. But, hey, that's their problem! Sticks and stocks and stones. --Christofurio 21:46, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I realise that my wording was very confusing. Here's a list to try to sort it out better:

• People have desires.
• People should have rights to enable them to fulfill those desires.
• Society (consists of) are people.
• Some people's desires will conflict.
• It's impossible to pick a universal set of rights that will fit everyone's desires. If you want to be perfect as possible:
  • Either you give everyone variable rights (based on what they deserve - complicated and flutuates according to their actions, but more perfect IMO)
  • Or you give everyone the same rights, a set of rights specially picked so as to minimise breaking of rights.
• In summary, for maximum good, rights are invented to protect the greater good.

If maximum good isn't one's objective, then rights don't have to serve the greater good. But then what would be one's objective? Infinity0 ^talk 22:08, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

My objective, in a word, would be progress. Whether that's the same thing as what you mean by "the greater good" is up to you to decide, but I think calling the objective of rights "progress" helps clarify the dynamic aspect thereof. By progress I mean the reconciliation of conflicting desires over time, so that the conflicts are lesser, and the satisfactions are greater, in the next century than they are in this one, and still lesser (or still greater) in the century after that. And so forth for so long as our species may last. --Christofurio 00:00, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

And another thing: there is more than double "pro" links than "con" links at the bottom. Anyone doing a casual read might interpret this to mean that socialism has more going for it than against. I do not consider this a balanced presentation. Dullfig

• Note: It is customary for an article on any ideology to contain more "pro" links than "con" links. The article on libertarianism, for instance, contains far more pro-libertarian links than anti-libertarian ones. Why? Because few websites are strictly against something. Most are pro something else. Libertarian websites are against socialism, yes, but they are mostly dedicated to being pro libertarianism, not against socialism. -- Nikodemos (f.k.a. Mihnea) 21:43, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Personally I don't find anything wrong with the presentation. And Ayn Rand is not mainstream, but more importantly Ayn Rand is not relevant to a discussion of socialism. However, if you think that the criticisms of socialism are underrepresented, please add some. Tenebrous 08:40, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

We already have a separate article for that. In any case, because Ayn Rand is not mainstream, her views on socialism should go in her own article, not here. See WP:NPOV, specifically the section on "undue weight". -- Nikodemos (f.k.a. Mihnea) 09:10, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

The important thing is to specify that socialist want to abolish private property, not personal property. The fundamental goal of abolishing private property is that people shouldn't be able to accumulate capital in the sense of property, or "own" people working/living on that property. Socialist don't want to make your chair, glasses or golden teeth the property of the people. - Naminü, Norway

Socialists who use the "no one created the earth, therefore only the sovereign can make use of the earth" reasoning Mihnea has been urging upon us certainly imply that they want to take my chair, glasses, and gold teeth -- all of which "come from the earth" in the same sense that a factory or railroad track does. If you don't believe X, and you think the resistance to socialism based upon opposition to X is misguided, then you must oppose those within your ranks who do say X, and you're responsible for making that clear. --Christofurio 21:07, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Ok, so you don't want to take my chair away! that's nice. I guess that means that I can take my chair down to the nearest park, and charge rent for sitting in it to joggers that are tired and can't find a decent place to sit, then? Great! Maybe I've been misjudging this socialism thing. ;-) Dullfig 22:16, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

The Public

There is a couple of things that I think are not properly explained in the article. The first is the concept of "the public". At the core, socialists believe there is an entity called "the public", which is different from the concept of "a bunch of people living together". The belief is that "the public" is an actual entity, like a body. And just like one would trim their fingernails to benefit the rest of the body, under socialism it is OK if a few suffer if it benefits the many.

That is simply false, and a straw man. You seem to draw your views about socialism from the things anti-socialists say about it. Please read what the socialists themselves have to say about their own views. I'm sure you will agree with me that anyone (socialists included) is a higher authority on one's own views than one's enemies. -- Nikodemos (f.k.a. Mihnea) 21:51, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

The other point that I think is not being properly explained is that in order for "the public" to own the means of production, private property cannot exist. After all, ANY object can be a means of production. I know a Hairdresser that escaped from Cuba, who told me that if the government would have found out that she was cutting hair on the side in her house, she would have been arrested and sent to jail. Her "means of production" where a pair of scissors and a comb. When socialists talk of the "means of production", they don't just mean GM and Microsoft, they mean ANY means of production. -- Dullfig 17:25, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

This is a question of extent. Different socialists have different views on the extent of things that can be considered means of production. And, again, most socialists are not opposed to self-employment (from my knowledge, not even the Cuban government is opposed to [registered] self-employment). -- Nikodemos (f.k.a. Mihnea) 21:51, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

This sounds like you're saying that Dullfig errs by giving socialist credit for more consistency than they possess. That 'error' is charity. --Christofurio 22:05, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Socialists, like all individuals, have no obligation to be consistent with the views held by other people. One's views should be consistent with each other (internally consistent), but not necessarily consistent with the views held by other people who choose the same label for themselves (in this case, "socialist"). In other words, just because two people want to call themselves "socialists" doesn't mean that they must share the exact same ideas. This principle holds for any label, including "liberal", "conservative", "libertarian", etc. -- Nikodemos (f.k.a. Mihnea) 22:28, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Any socialist who believe that private ownership of the means of production is wrong because, say, "no one created the earth and the means of production ultimately came from the earth" must, to be consistent, believe that even the private ownership of a pair of scissors is wrong, even if used only in self-employment with no wage payment involved at all. Because that reasoning applies to the scissors, as well or as poorly as it applies to a factory or a computer. It applies just as coherently, to the scissors. So it would be inconsistent for any socialist who saets ou the reasoning you have so often set out about natural resources blah blah blah to make any exceptions for scissors or for tools used only by the self employed. That was my point. --Christofurio 01:45, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

You are correct. My point was that different socialists may use a reasoning different from my own. -- Nikodemos (f.k.a. Mihnea) 01:52, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

But Dullfig, in accurately extending your reasoning as you've been presenting it to him, wasn't erecting a straw man. (Or the straw man sings and dances, like the one in Oz.) --Christofurio 14:41, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Are you saying under capitalism it's wrong to make one person suffer to save others? Why? Infinity0 ^talk 16:48, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Ok, consider this: suppose two guys are stranded on an island. First they decide that they are going to cultivate the island together, and live off the fruit of their work. But they start fighting because one says the other works less. So they decide to split the island in two, and each will live off his half. Now comes harvest season, and sure enough, one guy reaps a bountiful harvest, while the other barely has enough to subsist. If the one guy takes food from the other by force, that is called "stealing", but if a government does it, it is called "redistribution of wealth".

What if they split the island such that one guy got all the good agricultural land while the other guy got a lifeless desert? Should you then be surprised that they are not having the same success? My point is that your little example assumes that each person starts off in life with exactly the same assets and opportunities as every other person, which is utterly false. -- Nikodemos (f.k.a. Mihnea) 04:52, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

• • Each human ever born is ultimately looking out for himself. Self sacrifice is a learned behaviour, not a natural one. Here is where you can see that humans are NOT part of a whole entity called "the people". In our body, for example, liver cells are quite happy to do a lot of work that will benefit cells they will never even see. Humans do not have an instinct to work their rear off so that other humans can enjoy the fruit of their labor. A self sacrificing species would be long extinct. Any being that instinctively worked, worked, worked, and then gave it all away, would probably die during the first drought.
    • Any behaviour that has been documented to exist throughout all of human history can safely be considered natural. Self-sacrifice has been a major component of every known society and culture. "A self sacrificing species would be long extinct"? Very funny, seeing how some of the most successful species on Earth are far more self sacrificing than humans could or will ever be. All social animals - like us - have an instinct of individual sacrifice for the good of the group, because the survival of the individual depends on the survival of the group. For a member of a tribe living in a hostile environment, the only way to survive is to put all his efforts into the survival of the tribe. Any personal sacrifice was worth it as long as the tribe survived; even the ultimate sacrifice, because one's genes would still live on in one's descendents. Through natural selection, altruism and self-sacrifice was bred into human nature, because tribes composed of egoistic individuals were more likely to die than tribes composed of cooperative individuals. -- Nikodemos (f.k.a. Mihnea) 04:52, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • We are the heirs to a long line of survival instincts that says "conserving energy is the first strategy of survival". No human works real hard unless it improves his own chances of survival. The guy that worked the land real hard, probably did so to have some left over for a rainy day. If an outside force (governemnt?) came and told him that he is not allowed to keep anything over and above what he needs for subsistence, he would STOP working as soon as he reached subsistence level.
    • Of course, but what if an outside force came and told him to work cooperatively with the other guy so that their total harvest will be increased and they will both benefit? Or what if an outside force created a central system of storage and distribution of food for rainy days, in order to guarantee the survival of all individuals? -- Nikodemos (f.k.a. Mihnea) 04:52, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Any system that works against human instinct will ultimately fail. You cannot undo milenia of evolution. What you CAN do is set up a system where people can follow their instincts without trampling over other people's right to exist. The most a system can aspire to, is that the lazy ones (and there ARE lazy ones) only affect themselves and no one else. No one should be forced to pick up the slack for someone not pulling his weight.
    • First, see above about human instinct. It is our nature to help each other, because our ancestors survived by helping each other. Second, we are not animals. We are not slaves to base instincts. We are human, we are beings of intellect and reason. Any person who lets himself be driven purely by animal instinct is not worthy of the name "human". -- Nikodemos (f.k.a. Mihnea) 04:52, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • And what about "exploitation"? Under pure capitalism (which we do not have) each human would be free to pursue his own self interest, freely trading with other humans. You could not coerce anyone into doing anything, as the government would prevent you from doing so. You cannot have true exploitation without complicity of the governemnt. Exploitation can only happen when alternatives to the worker have been artificialy eliminated.
    • Exploitation happens whenever alternatives to the worker are limited or eliminated, regardless of the cause of this situation. Government can be a cause, of course, but so can private property. If A, B, and C own all the means of production, then D, E and F have no choice but to work for them or starve. And that is how you get exploitation. -- Nikodemos (f.k.a. Mihnea) 04:52, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I own a machine shop. I started in 1993 with NOTHING ( no, realy, I was on my last unemployment check). I started doing machining for other companies out of my garage. Little by little I saved my money and kept buying more equipment. Now I employ three employees, and take up 4000 sq ft. Now take Germany, for example. Run a machine in your garage ? are you kidding ?! no, over there you could only start big. Machine shops fail all the time, so it is hard to get venture capital for machine shops. The result is, that no one can start out small. All those machinists that could have been successfully self employed, are not. All because of government regulation. It is always government medling that ruins everything, even in capitalism. Statism must be fought like your life depends on it :)

Dullfig 18:30, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I find it ironic that you started out on unemployment checks and now you argue that unemployment checks are evil. -- Nikodemos (f.k.a. Mihnea) 04:52, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

When did I say that?! Insurance is a great thing! I love auto insurance, life insurance, even unemployment insurance. The only criticism I have is that I think it would be better managed by private firms. You could shop around for the best unemployment coverage. Or, if you thought you would never loose your job, or didn't care, you could elect to save some money and not carry unemployment insurance at all. why am I coerced into paying the government for it? ( we are talking about the same government that brought you the Department of motor vehicles)

Dullfig 19:21, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

• suppose two guys are stranded on an island. - but life's not like that, is it? People don't start with equal opportunity.

Depends on how you define opportunity. You might think that opportunity means having a rich Dad. But fortunes are squandered all the time. And there is nothing to prevent someone from making it to the top (ever hear of Andrew Carnegie?). To me, equal opportunity means that as long as you do not infringe on other's rights, you can do whatever you want to further yourself. -- Dullfig

It is logically impossible for everyone to make it to the top. You can't have a society composed entirely of bosses and CEO's. As long as there is a top, there is also a bottom. And as long as there is a bottom, someone must occupy it. -- Nikodemos (f.k.a. Mihnea) 04:52, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

The question is not weather there is a bottom or not, the question is, how well off are the ones a the bottom? Humans are a weak species. Not much physical strength (comparatively), not very fast, not very big. Our biggest asset is teamwork. The problem is tha teamwork is a rational activity. You have to concieve of what you want to accomplish, what steps to take to accomplish it, what tools you need, who you need to include in the team. All of this activity happens between your two ears. And not everyone can do it. I find it perplexing that so many workers are jeallous of the owner, but see ABSOLUTELY NO VALUE in what the owner is doing. -- Dullfig 19:21, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

• If the one guy takes food from the other by force, that is called "stealing", but if a government does it, it is called "redistribution of wealth". - says who? What do you define to be stealing?

One guy put in extra effort to improve his chances of survival, the other guy took it away, without earning it. He infringed on the first's right-of-life. Why should the second one be entitled to better chances of survival without doing nothing to earn it? -- Dullfig

Ah, but what if the second guy works in a sweatshop for the first? What if the second guy is an employee doing all the work for a meager wage, while the first guy is a boss reaping the profits? -- Nikodemos (f.k.a. Mihnea) 04:52, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

• Each human ever born is ultimately looking out for himself... No human works real hard unless it improves his own chances of survival. - what is your justification for this? Have you so arrogantly found the "purpose of life", then?

oh, please.. now you are going to say that humans don't have an instinct of self-preservation... Dullfig

Of course they do. That instinct means that humans will generally do whatever it takes to survive - including sharing and cooperating with others. For a member of a tribe living in a hostile environment, the only way to survive is to put all his efforts into the survival of the group. How do you think altruism got started in the first place? Humans are social animals; in the natural state of man, one's survival was completely dependent on the survival of one's tribe. So people had to learn to sacrifice their own immediate interests for those of the tribe. -- Nikodemos (f.k.a. Mihnea) 04:52, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

• Any system that works against human instinct will ultimately fail - what is human instinct? Are you so arrogant that you know what human instinct is?

Again, self-preservation. So you would argue that EVERY being in the animal kingdom has an instinct for self preservation, except for humans. You can't win an argument by denying reality. Dullfig

No one is denying the instinct of self-preservation. See above. -- Nikodemos (f.k.a. Mihnea) 04:52, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

• I started in 1993 with NOTHING. - good for you! lots of people starting with lots of wealth, though. I suppose you will agree that inheritance rights should be abolished? On a side note, it's AMAZING how all the market fundamentalists I have debated with have "started from nothing". Coincidence?

Cute. You obviously don't live in the US if you don't believe that what I just said is possible. No american would ever doubt my story, because it is heard and seen first hand everywhere, everyday. They don't call it "land of opportunity" as a publicity stunt. It is the most common way of starting a machine shop in the US. There is even a name for it: "mom and pop shop". -- Dullfig

• Under pure capitalism (which we do not have) each human would be free to pursue his own self interest, freely trading with other humans. - How can you assume that a free market will work?

Because it allows me to pursue my self interest without stepping on your toes, and you can pursue yours without stepping on mine. -- Dullfig

Infinity0 ^talk 19:42, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I just checked your webpage. From China (Maoist country), living in the UK. I hate to break it to you, you do not live in a capitalist society, no matter what anyone tells you. The UK is heavily socialist, and things won't get any better by joining the EU. You should come live in the US for a while, before you knock capitalism. -- Dullfig 23:50, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm currently living in the US, and I can't wait to get out of here. -- Nikodemos (f.k.a. Mihnea) 04:52, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Happy trip! don't forget to write ;-) Dullfig 19:21, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Why do you assume I hate the UK? I love it here. National Health Service is more than what the US offers, and a public transport system! And I don't have to put up with crap (inc bullshit adverts) from corporations telling you to BUY THEIR STUFF! And UK companies don't fire Coca-cola employees for drinking Pepsi. Infinity0 ^talk 00:05, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

That might be so, but by your comments you have made it clear that the little guy could never make it to the top. I related to you my story (very common in the US), and you seemed to not believe that what I was relating was at all possible. So that proves that the UK has less opportunities to advance in life. So you would gladly accept being a lowly employee your whole life, in exchange for health coverage? That's not what I would call a fair deal... -- Dullfig 17:18, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

You're NOT at the top, are you? :| What to you mean by "advance in life?" Gaining more money? And since when did I ever claim employment was a good thing, nor has socialism got any concept of employment in it for you to justify that sentence? Infinity0 ^talk 21:22, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Dullfig, your justification of individualism is very shallow. Like I pointed out above, your theory mentions nothing, and cannot mention anything, about when individuals interact together. People's interests, and therefore rights, WILL conflict. And it's mathematicaly impossible to preserve everyone's rights. Which do you break? Infinity0 ^talk 00:06, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

So the right to exist (I don't call it right to life, because it sounds like an argument about the death penalty) cannot be guaranteed for everyone ?! Can we agree that at the very least we all have a right to exist? -- Dullfig 22:25, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I never said I disagreed with that point. Infinity0 ^talk 22:33, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Then you contradict your asertion that people in a society will self-sacrifice for the greater good. That is not so. They will co-operate with other humans of their own free will if it also benefits them. Suppose humans had coexisted with dinosaurs. Say you wanted to hunt one. What would keep the tribe from picking a "designated victim" to use as a distraction? Take one member of the tribe, feed it to the dinosaur, and while it's distracted eating the guy, kill it. From the "greater good" standpoint, it is perfectly reasonable. But it denied the guy's right to exist. That is why when governments start talking about "greater good", it's time to run for the hills. -- Dullfig 06:37, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I never claimed everyone would self-sacrifice for the greater good. I am only saying that your theory of "everyone should do what is best for themselves, because it is human nature" ignores the fact that there are many of us. Infinity0 ^talk 21:05, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

So give me an example of something you do that benefits others, but not yourself Dullfig 22:23, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Editing wikipedia. Infinity0 ^talk 22:32, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

editing wikipedia helps me clarify my thoughts :) Dullfig 00:03, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Also, give me an example of something you do that benefits yourself, but not others. Infinity0 ^talk 22:37, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Anytime you engage in trade with another human, you do so out of self interest, no matter what the other one gains. If I sell my car to you, I have to value the money you give me MORE than having the car, or I would never sell it to you. It does not matter that the transaction benefited you, because now you have a car. The reason I sold it was because I needed the money more than the car. On the other hand, you needed the car more than the money. So you feel you gained too. So trades are always win-win situations, but are initiated purely out of self-interest. Dullfig 00:03, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I edit wikipedia to keep rubbish out of articles, so other people don't get misled. There is no benefit to myself. Infinity0 ^talk 00:13, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

So if your point of view where to prevail, and people actually agreed with you that a socialist society was better, and society became socialist, this would not have any benefit to you? are you kidding? Please, if we are going to argue, let's at least be honest. You either have WAY to much free time on your hands (college?:) or you are getting something out of the time spent in wikipedia. At the very least you get a kick out of the mental exercise that arguing with others gives you. Dullfig 01:23, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand your first sentence. Not everyone does agree with me. You think I like listening to the stuff right-wingers spew out? Please. The only reason I edit wikipedia is to help articles be balanced. I'm 16. I have plenty of other stuff I could be doing. Infinity0 ^talk 20:50, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Let me get this straight: you are 16, yet you know for a fact that employers exploit employees. This would be based on your....... work experience? Who's been brainwashing you? Dullfig 21:38, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Why should it be based on my work experience? My work experience isn't generic enough for me justifying that view, that ALL employment is exploitation. I've already explained exploitation many times, read through Talk:Capitalism. Infinity0 ^talk 22:27, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Rights

1 People have desires.

2 People should have rights to enable them to fulfill those desires.

3 Society (consists of) are people.

4 Some people's desires will conflict.

5 It's impossible to pick a universal set of rights that will fit everyone's desires. If you want to be perfect as possible:

a Either you give everyone variable rights (based on what they deserve - complicated and flutuates according to their actions, but more perfect IMO)

b Or you give everyone the same rights, a set of rights specially picked so as to minimise breaking of rights.

6 In summary, for maximum good, rights are invented to protect the greater good. (If maximum good isn't one's objective, then rights don't have to serve the greater good. But then what would be one's objective?)

Infinity0 ^talk 22:08, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I can't resist interjecting here. First, let's define rights so we're all on the same page. A (general moral) right is a moral claim to freedom of action. Whoops! Already we have a problem: #2 misidentifies the telos of rights. The purpose of rights is to promote individuals' freedom of action. Moving on; 4 and 5 are true, but 5 continues with the mistaken telos of rights. It is certainly true that it's impossible to pick a set of rights which fits everyone's desires, but all we really need is a set of rights which will fit everyone's freedom of action. This is a lot easier: we pick the usual individual rights, aka negative rights. Negative rights are based on certain commonalities of man, so fit all men equally.

Point 6 is a real lemon. It assumes a utilitarian viewpoint - and obviously not everyone is a utilitarian. One could go on and on about the flaws in utilitarianism (might I suggest reading the introduction to Herbert Spencer's Social Statics.) Quick summary: "Good" refers to an individual, or at least something with consciousness and purpose. A collective (like society) has no brain, hence no purpose, and no good. Trying to come up with an artificial amalgamation of "good" doesn't work, since it assumes e.g. that interpersonal comparison of utility is valid. More Spencerian points: no one knows and few can agree on what the good consists of. Even if someone knows that, they don't know what actions or choices lead to the good.

You ask, "If maximum good isn't one's objective, ... then what would be one's objective?" In other words, what are some other ethical systems besides utilitarianism? Regarding rights, my answer would be, The objective is to maintain the necessary conditions for freedom of action. Thus, unlike utilitarianism where you try to trade-off different people's utility, the focus is in identifying side-constraints on conduct. E.g. It's bad to murder, regardless of utilitarian considerations. No matter how much ecstatic pleasure the vast majority might get for killing all the redheads, it would still be morally wrong. Hogeye 23:32, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

"The purpose of rights is to promote individuals' freedom of action." - means the same thing as "enabling people to fulfill their desires".

It's "wrong" to murder because your victim's right to life overrides your right to pleasure out of killing. That's why it's not wrong to destroy a table, for instance. Different rights have different weightings. That's why "majority rules" doesn't always work. Infinity0 ^talk 23:51, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

It's not wrong to destroy a table? Hmmm. Remind me never to invite you to my home for dinner. It's a graver wrong to murder a person than to destroy a table, surely. And it isn't always wrong to destroy a table. In emergency conditions, one might need to burn the wood of a table to keep warm!

Still, your example rather nicely illustrates my point about the problem with using "the good of a society" as a rationale for rights in general or property rights in particular. If you understand progress toward mutual reconciliation, a process that takes place on a truly grand scale involving centuries, as the justification for rights, you'll also understand that it's a good thing that tables (which in some cases are the means of production, as at a boarding house for example) should be somebody's private property, and that this somebody should have the right to ban you from your evident willingness to destroy it! --Christofurio 00:08, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Infinity> "It's "wrong" to murder because your victim's right to life overrides your right to pleasure out of killing."

Yes. I agree with you 100%. But notice you are no longer a utilitarian when you write that. You are saying that, no matter how much it is in the "public good," murder is wrong. You are saying that the victim's right to life overrides social utility. You are using a principled ethic rather than the ethic of expediency - utilitarianism.

You write: "promoting individuals' freedom of action" means the same thing as "enabling people to fulfill their desires". I think there's a subtle difference; the former is not as inclusive as the latter. The purpose of rights isn't to satisfy any end-results of human action, it is to provide the necessary conditions for human living. Example: The right of freedom of speech does not attempt to teach anyone to speechify or write, nor does it aim to provide broadcast equipment and capability. The right of free speech simply says other people should not forcibly prevent you from taking any action you are entitled to take in attempting to communicate. The right of freedom of travel does not buy you a plane ticket; it does say that no one should forcibly prevent you from buying one. So while rights very well may enable, they only address the "others should not forcibly prevent you" issue. Rights address jurisdiction (who should decide) , not end-results, of human action. Hogeye 00:27, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Utilitarianism is a moral view on how all individuals should act. By saying "for maximum good" I meant what society as a whole should do, not any individuals.

"You are saying that, no matter how much it is in the "public good," murder is wrong." - no: if something overrides someone else's right to life (eg. 1000 people's right to life overrides 1 person's right to life) then murder is right. I was only saying a person's right to life overrides other rights; but I didn't say it was the utmost right.

I didn't completely understand your second paragraph. "The right of freedom of speech does not attempt to teach anyone to speechify or write," - no, but it allows people to fulfill their desire to voice their opinions. I guess you thought by "enabling" I meant "provide all the necessary requirements for", which I didn't. Infinity0 ^talk 12:02, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Chart

Marxist communism is a "stateless society" and therefore is not "authoritarian socialism." How is democratic socialism "authoritarian"? Also, "liberal socialism" doesn't only include the anarchist forms. Infinity0 ^talk 00:01, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

"Communism", as you say, refers to the Marxian final goal situation. But it also refers to a philosophy. The philosophy "communism" espouses controlling/ruling using a State to contruct a new commie man. Any philosophy that wants to utilize a State for change is authoritarian. Put another way, Marxism wants to use authoritarian means to achieve libertarian goals. Hogeye 21:21, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

The state is used to overthrow the current order, not create a new one. The state will "wither away", not change people. "The term authoritarian is used to describe an organization or a state which enforces strong and sometimes oppressive measures against those in its sphere of influence, generally without attempts at gaining their consent and often not allowing feedback on its policies." Democratic socialism certainly is not authoritarian. Infinity0 ^talk 21:31, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Continuing the same authoritarianism article you quoted, "There are various degrees of authoritarianism; even very democratic and liberal states will show authoritarianism to some extent..." Using the State to enforce your vision of society is definitely authoritarian to some extent.

"Authoritarian" is a relative term. Policy X is more authoritarian than policy Y. Hogeye 22:06, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

By judging the level of authoritarianess within socialism you are giving false impressions on it based on other systems. Stateless communism and democratic socialism are not authoritarian compared to even current day systems. Infinity0 ^talk 22:09, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Again you confuse the final state with the process. If the process is authoritarian, then the philosophy promoting that process is authoritarian. Thus, the socialist anarchists are more libertarian (less authoritarian) than the socialist democrats and marxists. As usual, a picure is worth 1000 words:

Political ideology diagram, showing anarcho-socialism at the upper left and anarcho-capitalism at the upper right. The up-down dimension represents the extent of government; the left-right dimension represents the outward appearance (legal fiction) of property ownership. In theory, both socialism and capitalism have statist and anti-statist variants. The placement of persons and parties on this graph are only approximate, and suject to debate.

Hogeye 01:45, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

That chart says nothing about communism. How can you say democratic socialism is authoritarian? Also, you leave out much from the chart. They are other variants of socialim apart from communism; yet the chart says nothing about them. Infinity0 ^talk 19:30, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Right. The chart is only there to help us conceptualize the libertarian vs propertarian aspect. BTW I'm not suggesting we put this in the article.

• IMHO communism, taken to be an extreme socialism, would be the line segment from Kropotkin to Stalin. Where on that line for any particular person or party would depend on how libertarian-authoritarian they are.

• Democratic socialism is authoritarian because there is a State. The democratic socialist welfare-warfare State is moderately authoritarian - somewhat below the Socialism-Capitalism axis. It depends on how much they plunder (tax), how much they interfere with freedom of travel and trade, and so on.

• If you want to plot some parties, then download the image and go for it.

Hogeye 06:02, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

The chart puts Mussolini & Hitler to the far "capitalist", though really they should be in the middle, on the bottom directly under Proudhon & Tucker; Maybe Franco & Pinochet should be habitating the far right authoritarian corner, but not Hitler or Mussolini. Nagelfar 02:02, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Your chart is really misleading. You say "moderately authoritarian" but the chart makes no distinction. And still, it has only four schools in it. Please add more, and make clear the distinctions, because at the moment the chart is not useful at all, and only serves to take up space. Infinity0 ^talk 21:12, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

The word "authoritarian" is relative. Minarchism is more authoritarian than anarchism. The chart isn't supposed to list all schools; that's what the list is for. The chart give an overview of the four general types of schools. Please get over your absurd POV notion that socialist statists aren't more authoritarian than socialist anarchists. Hogeye 16:58, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

That was completely NOT my notion. My point is that your chart implies that democratic socialism and marxist communism is in the authoritarian half of the whole political field, not just in socialism. Using a word generally means "compared to everything", not "compared to a few things". Infinity0 ^talk 19:10, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

No, only an absolute idiot would think its comparing everything, since the top level of the chart clearly says "Socialism." Hogeye 22:49, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Many people don't know what socialism is. By labelling one as "authoritarian" they will udnerstand that to mean "compared to everything". This article is not for experts. Infinity0 ^talk 12:01, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Would ideally

"Gluing this broken cup together would ideally stop it from leaking." means that the best possible outcome is that the cup stops leaking. It doesn't mean non-leakage is definite. Infinity0 ^talk 23:49, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but it also implies that the closer you can get to a perfect glue joint, the less the cup will leak. Which brings me back to socialism: IT IS NOT A PROVEN FACT that the closer you get to the socialist ideal, the closer you are to fair distribution of wealth. Remember, socialist also redifine what fair distribution means! What you call fair distribution is not what I call fair distribution.

Socialists feel that if some people have more than others, that that is unfair. But is it? By who's definition? So to say that socialism would ideally eliminate unfair distribution, is POV. Period. -- Dullfig 00:02, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

It's not POV, since it is describing THEIR views, and it tells you that it's describing their views, ie. "ideally". But how about "supposed to" instead of "would ideally"? Infinity0 ^talk 00:07, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

How's that? I've tried to remove the idea of fair and unfair and express it is an aim/aspiration/goal, but it does leave us with the rather woolly "more equal". MrTrev 00:12, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

What's the difference? Using "fair" obviously means judging by socialists' standards. I don't see the problem with my last edit, and Dullfig hasn't raised complaints about that one. Your version makes it seems like it's the only, or primary, goal. Infinity0 ^talk 00:17, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Using "unequal" is more exact (than "unfair") and not so POV. If you want to use "unfair", change to something like "purported by socialists to be unfair" or some such. But "unequal" tells why they consider it unfair. Hey, maybe "intended to promote an egalitarian distribution of wealth." That makes it clear what moral goal they're supporting with a description rather than endorsement. Hogeye 18:52, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Not all socialists are egalitarian. Infinity0 ^talk 20:09, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I'll bite; name a socialist who is not an egalitarian. Citation, please. Hogeye 23:46, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Here's a quote from the socialism Wiki article: "Among the notable broadly egalitarian philosophies are socialism..." But maybe you consider Bismark to be a socialist! Hogeye 23:57, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

What kind of egalitarianism? Egalitarian distribution of wealth implies material egalitarianism. You are the one making this assertion, you have to provide the source. Also, stop re-inserting your table. Infinity0 ^talk 00:01, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

What's the problem - does "egalitarian" have too many syllables for you? I didn't write the socialism wiki article, nor virtually every other article on socialism in the world - all of which consider socialism to be an egalitarian philosophy. The whole fucking idea of socialism is to equalize weath, as you admit. Hogeye 00:21, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

No, the whole point of socialism is to have public means of production, and to minimise excessive inequality. It doesn't try to make everyone have exactly the same material wealth. Infinity0 ^talk 00:33, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

etymology

How about a small section on the etymology of the term, like on the capitalism article? I've come across an old definition of socialism from the 19th century Webster's dictionary: "a theory of society which advocates a more precise, more orderly, and more harmonious arrangement of the social relations of mankind than has hitherto prevailed." [1] This explains why some of the 19th century individualist anarchists called themselves "socialists" while at the same time supporting private property (including the means of production) and opposed collectivism. RJII 04:38, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

• socialist

1827, from Fr. socialiste, in reference to the teachings of Comte de Saint-Simon, founder of Fr. socialism. Socialism is attested from 1837, apparently first in reference to Robert Owen's communes. "Pierre Leroux (1797-1871), idealistic social reformer and Saint-Simonian publicist, expressly claims to be the originator of the word socialisme" [Klein]. The word begins to be used in Fr. in the modern sense c.1835. Socialista, with a different sense, was applied 18c. to followers and pupils of Du. jurist Grotius (1583-1645).

Not much there, the above info is basically already in the section. May be able to be expanded, see what you can do :) Infinity0 ^talk 17:57, 20 February 2006 (UTC)