What is your understanding of socialism and/or communism?

Kama

Well, I hope they enjoyed reading about all the jobs that weren't available. Individual successes in healthcare, literacy etc. don't show the whole picture in terms of quality of life...Also, the socialist emphasis on outcomes may not be helpful.

Well, for one thing outcomes are helpful because you can measure it quite accurately; it's highly helpful to be scientific that you can measure something. It's much harder to measure the possibility of something happening; opportunity is a far fuzzier concept operationally to make comparisons on any evidence-based level. In the Scandinavian case, universal creche/childcare and early education gives a strong movement toward initial equality and consequent possible meritocracy. Initial conditions matter, imo, and a highly unequal system fails meritocratically imo because of this, which is a strong ethical argument for socialised provision. I'd query what you'd like to measure, if not outcomes?

What 'the whole picture' is depends on what you prioritise. If you are arguing that job creation is what you are trying to maximise, full employment isn't usually a neoliberal capitalist priority. But, I'm actually quite for an outcomes-based approach, as in the examples I outlined. Infant mortality by socioeconomic class imo is a critical variable, as is general mortality, both of which are heavily affected by quality of healthcare available. If you accept a highly unequal distribution of healthcare, you implicitly accept a highly unequal distribution of infant mortality. Which I don't personally consider 'fair and equitable', in any kind of Rawlsian 'Veil of Ignorance' or otherwise.

Oh, so one example means it doesn't largely work in practise? Please.

No, thats an example; its not a refutation, its a factual counter. Again, what do we want to prioritise, which brings us into social choice. Zapatistas were an interesting example, because it was declared as an armed insurrection against the disinterested non-political economics embodied by NAFTA, which queers the non-political assumption re economics a little imo. Plenty of other examples if you look for 'em. And to me the question is not whether it 'works', but how it works, and (the ideological question) in whose interests it works. (You can be meliorist and look at this as a helpful critique for designing better regimes and rules for capitalist market-states, rather than anything overly revolutionary.)

I don't contend the two won't interact, merely that one should be concerned with creating and distributing wealth, and the other with allowing this to happen and redistribution of wealth to where the first failed to place it.

Which to me is the argument for socialist market-states, that there's a productive synthesis between the two. Another interesting approach imo is Georgist economic thought (Alaska Permanent Fund being an interesting example) where you would charge a rent for the use of a resource, and then allow competition downstream, so as not to interfere with a competitive market; a non-distorting form of taxation. There's an advantage that you are taking out upstream to fund social projects, rather than redistributing after the fact downstream, with its attendent political struggles.

Economics is oftren said to be about the allocation of scarce resources; the divorce of economics from political economy has had one party attempt to ignore politics so it will hopefully go away, but the allocation of resources (especially for anyone materialist) is always-already a political question. If they are to be seperated, this is a project to achieve rather than a current state of affairs.

There is also plenty of evidence that as countries engage in more free trade, standard of living indexes rise, income gaps narrow, poverty rates decline etc. So it is pretty fair and equitable.

I don't think the evidence is nearly as clear as you say. There's evidence going in the other direction too, both intra-country and in international trade, without even going into the asymmetric nature of what is generally phrased as 'free trade'. Usually the argument would be that (intra-country) growth is increased, inequality rises, income gaps widen, Gini coefficient goes up, but that inequality is a price worth paying for robust growth. Between countries, the Marxist argument would be that the gains made disproportionately accrue to a dominant class within the countries, and that this is neither fair nor equitable.

Again, need to decide what is 'fair', and what decide qualifies as 'free trade', and so on; way off-topic, but raising it as an issue. In an ideal-theoretical world I'd agree with you more, but because economic trade agreements etc are heavily influenced by respective 'voice' or power, trade agreements (I'm sure you agree) are often heavily asymmetric. The irony is that theoretically, unilateral liberalization without reciprocation would be its own reward; but peculiarly, the dominant Western capitalist states don't work on this basis, which is part of Chang's argument in Bad Samaritans.

You provided an example yourself when you talked about Smith referring to God. Will I find references to God's hand balancing inequities in recent issues of The Economist or the FT?

Yes, its right there in the general equilibirum model that much classical economics is founded on. But that its origins are in theology doesn't completely undermine it, its more an interesting genealogical flavour to the discipline, without going into the semi-religious faith that some people have in market processes.

That's a fascinating idea.
It'll never work.

Hehe it was a techno-booster utopian thing; I don't count on it happening, but I'd be *very* interested in what would happen if replication and open-source design became widespread, and has interesting ramifications in terms of ownership of the means of production, imo.

DadaKopf

Again, need to decide what is 'fair', and what decide qualifies as 'free trade', and so on; way off-topic, but raising it as an issue. In an ideal-theoretical world I'd agree with you more, but because economic trade agreements etc are heavily influenced by respective 'voice' or power, trade agreements (I'm sure you agree) are often heavily asymmetric. The irony is that theoretically, unilateral liberalization without reciprocation would be its own reward; but peculiarly, the dominant Western capitalist states don't work on this basis, which is part of Chang's argument in Bad Samaritans.

Power is in all human relations. This condition is inescapable so you need fair 'rules of the game' to minimise this effect. Capitalism as a social relation, to bring things on-topic, is such a power relation and, theoretically, this would still fail when applied to lived social reality.

I don't think the evidence is nearly as clear as you say. There's evidence going in the other direction too, both intra-country and in international trade, without even going into the asymmetric nature of what is generally phrased as 'free trade'. Usually the argument would be that (intra-country) growth is increased, inequality rises, income gaps widen, Gini coefficient goes up, but that inequality is a price worth paying for robust growth. Between countries, the Marxist argument would be that the gains made disproportionately accrue to a dominant class within the countries, and that this is neither fair nor equitable.

Dependency theory, developed by UN economists Andre Gunder Frank (who worked with and broke from Milton Friedman) and Raoul Prebisch, made a very strong case showing how capitalism generates unequal development both within and between countries. Dependency theory sought to explain the underlying economic structures of global trade and then develop a solution to this - developing countries should, temporarily, de-link their economies from rich countries and trade among themselves.

As for poverty, inequality and outcomes, I absolutely agree that we should focus on actual outcomes. Income inequality is just one measure, and a good proxy for other quality of life factors. It's a complex old issue. The first problem is: there are different measures of inequality, fir for different purposes. Secondly, the kind of data and your sources of data matter greatly. Overall, I think inequality has been rising within countries, and between regions, Africa having lost out the most. Anyway, here's something I wrote for a place I used to work in.

Moves towards measuring 'development' as well-being, like the UN Human Development Index, are another more integrated way to look at equality, rather than focusing solely on income. Unfortunately, the gini index isn't a component of this measure so it suffers from some weakness - the exclusion of this inequality measure was probably a political one. Another interesting finding recently is by the New Economics Foundation in the UK which compared EUROSTAT figures measuring people's 'subjective well-being' in the UK (as they have across the EEC since the 1970s) with income per capita (GNI); the study found that since the 1970s until the 1990s, people's subjective well-being rose with increased income, but past a certain point, income continued to increase but well-being remained static. At the same time, the UK has become a more unequal place; while incomes have congealed around the centre, there is a new super-poor and super-rich split. More than that, there is a huge, and growing, wealth divide.

It's equality of outcomes that matters most. That's by no means to say the end justifies the means, how you get there is part of the story.

brianthebard

You suggested things were getting off topic so I’ve only answered points I thought related to the original post.

Earthhorse wrote: »

Maybe. Perhaps it is because I'm approaching this from a pure economics background rather than with a grounding in political theory. Personally, I think the economic and political model should be kept separate, the same way we separate church and state (or should). I don't contend the two won't interact, merely that one should be concerned with creating and distributing wealth, and the other with allowing this to happen and redistribution of wealth to where the first failed to place it.

I think that’s very unrealistic of you, the economic model you are putting forward (free market capitalism) came from political and philosophical radicalism and theory, and vice versa. They are, like most things in society, intricately linked.

Also, the socialist emphasis on outcomes may not be helpful. It pre-supposes we can reach a state where inequities are eliminated (I assume by eliminating the class struggle which I can only imagine is achieved by eliminating class - could be wrong here) by transferring the means of production back to the workers. This is like saying the patient is ill and we need to cure them by eliminating the disease, rather than studying the disease to see how it works and see what we can do about it. It puts the cart before the horse.

That’s just plain wrong, Marx spent a long long time analysing the capitalist model before putting forth his ideas about what was wrong with it. Furthermore he never prescribed any specific form of government, other than communal based (if he even did that) and Marxists such as Adorno continued to analyse the capitalist system (see Culture industry again without putting forward prescriptive ideals on how to change it.

If it is fundamental to the model that working class interests be seen as base, static, and undemanding, and that they must be suppressed by the market if industry is to thrive, please explain how.

The workers are suppressed by low wages, long hours, and the force of industrialists that collaborates with each others. (as well as controlling the means of production and capital in the economy).

Nice dodge. Let me rephrase; how do you see the transition to a Marxist model, and the maintenance of it, working in an economy - any economy - today or in the recent past?

It wasn’t a dodge. Marxism is not a prescription (just to reiterate). Each situation is unique. For instance in Scandinavia and Iceland, there is no immediate threat to social democrat countries sovereignty. They have therefore been privileged to create a system of government which does not have to include Nationalism. On the other hand nations in South and Latin America, Africa, and Asia have, upon declaring socialist/Marxist/communist ideals been under threat from many different sides, and have had to involve nationalist ideals to try and keep the movement alive, because they cannot assume that they will be left to decide their own fate. This is probably a simplistic example, but imo explains why nations like Cuba have had to employ nationalism, despite it being non-Marxist.

You provided an example yourself when you talked about Smith referring to God. Will I find references to God's hand balancing inequities in recent issues of The Economist or the FT? I can't provide you with an example on the socialist front at the moment; I only encounter socialist writing in a haphazard manner and no definite example springs to mind.

Well you yourself suggested the invisible hand has just been reformed to be secular, so yeah you will. Please provide an example on the capitalist front then and I’ll better understand your position.

Earthhorse

DadaKopf wrote: »

Basically, what I mean is: at what point can a human being realistically be disconnected from his or her activity? Is what you say simply a language game that functions to preclude such questions (hence revealing an ideological bias)? Or, to pick an extreme but nonetheless real example, can a woman prostitute truly separate her 'labour' from her body?

Talking about capitalism means talking about personal experience. Afterall, Marxism is a methodology rooted in the everyday.

If what you are really interested in is the experience of workers then why not use the language they would to describe that experience? They would never say they "rent their bodies/minds in exchange for a portion of capitalists' profits" (prostitutes or stunt doubles might but even that's a stretch), they would say they "work for money". I mean, you know what work is, if you're old enough to read this then you know what work is.

Is what you say simply a language game that functions to super-impose you're own value judgments on that experience (hence revealing an ideological bias)?

Kama wrote: »

Well, for one thing outcomes are helpful because you can measure it quite accurately; it's highly helpful to be scientific that you can measure something.

We should measure outcomes, such as adult literacy, mortality rates etc., but focusing on them, particularly ones which we have no idea are achievable e.g. full equality, might not be helpful.

Kama wrote: »

It's much harder to measure the possibility of something happening; opportunity is a far fuzzier concept operationally to make comparisons on any evidence-based level.

We don't have to measure the possibility, we can measure the actuality e.g. does everyone have access to education?

Kama wrote: »

What 'the whole picture' is depends on what you prioritise.

I disagree. The whole picture is everything that plays into quality of life. We may quibble over whether certain measures may be included e.g. whether means of production are spread evenly, but there is no harm in including and we'll probably find more areas we agree should be included. Then, once you have the whole picture, you can decide what you want to prioritise. Indeed the picture may very well tell you what needs to be prioritised.

Also, we shouldn't just pick and choose the outcome measurements that support our arguments (though obviously we should pick and choose measures we consider important). For example:

Kama wrote: »

Infant mortality by socioeconomic class imo is a critical variable, as is general mortality, both of which are heavily affected by quality of healthcare available.

Ireland scores high on infant mortality if I'm not mistaken but that is not the full picture with regard to Ireland.

Kama wrote: »

If you are arguing that job creation is what you are trying to maximise, full employment isn't usually a neoliberal capitalist priority. But, I'm actually quite for an outcomes-based approach, as in the examples I outlined.

Full employment is largely desirable in my opinion though difficult to maintain over the long run. I wouldn't describe myself as a neoliberal capitalist (I don't really subscribe fully to any ideology as such).

Kama wrote: »

No, thats an example; its not a refutation, its a factual counter.

Ah, but it was preceded by the rather blunt phrase "In theory, yes; in practise, no" which implies the idea never, or nearly never, works in practise.

Kama wrote: »

Which to me is the argument for socialist market-states, that there's a productive synthesis between the two.

Well, perhaps I am a neo-socialist-market-statist then. You know. In disguise.

Kama wrote: »

Another interesting approach imo is Georgist economic thought (Alaska Permanent Fund being an interesting example) where you would charge a rent for the use of a resource, and then allow competition downstream, so as not to interfere with a competitive market; a non-distorting form of taxation. There's an advantage that you are taking out upstream to fund social projects, rather than redistributing after the fact downstream, with its attendent political struggles.

Think this idea is presented in The Undercover Economist though I can't remember what the context was. Interesting approach alright. Would like to see it in place more.

Kama wrote: »

I don't think the evidence is nearly as clear as you say. There's evidence going in the other direction too, both intra-country and in international trade, without even going into the asymmetric nature of what is generally phrased as 'free trade'. Usually the argument would be that (intra-country) growth is increased, inequality rises, income gaps widen, Gini coefficient goes up, but that inequality is a price worth paying for robust growth. Between countries, the Marxist argument would be that the gains made disproportionately accrue to a dominant class within the countries, and that this is neither fair nor equitable.

DadaKopf wrote: »

As for poverty, inequality and outcomes, I absolutely agree that we should focus on actual outcomes. Income inequality is just one measure, and a good proxy for other quality of life factors. It's a complex old issue. The first problem is: there are different measures of inequality, fir for different purposes. Secondly, the kind of data and your sources of data matter greatly. Overall, I think inequality has been rising within countries, and between regions, Africa having lost out the most. Anyway, here's something I wrote for a place I used to work in.

Moves towards measuring 'development' as well-being, like the UN Human Development Index, are another more integrated way to look at equality, rather than focusing solely on income. Unfortunately, the gini index isn't a component of this measure so it suffers from some weakness - the exclusion of this inequality measure was probably a political one.

Income inequality is an okay measure but PPP is better again. I would agree with Feldstein, that income inequality is not such a big deal once everyone's lot is on the increase. Whilst it might not be fair that growth results in a disproportionate accrual to the already well off, it is fairer than nothing accruing to the less well off while the already well off remain so.

Kama wrote: »

Again, need to decide what is 'fair', and what decide qualifies as 'free trade', and so on; way off-topic, but raising it as an issue. In an ideal-theoretical world I'd agree with you more, but because economic trade agreements etc are heavily influenced by respective 'voice' or power, trade agreements (I'm sure you agree) are often heavily asymmetric. The irony is that theoretically, unilateral liberalization without reciprocation would be its own reward; but peculiarly, the dominant Western capitalist states don't work on this basis, which is part of Chang's argument in Bad Samaritans.

In an ideal-theoretical world I'd agree with you that fairness and equity are totally achievable. I absolutely agree that trade agreements are often heavily asymmetric but this is obviously contrary to what free-market capitalism preaches. The fact that vested interests can unduly influence the drafting of these agreements is not a trivial issue but without concrete proposals for preventing it, will certainly continue in the medium run.

Kama wrote: »

Yes, its right there in the general equilibirum model that much classical economics is founded on. But that its origins are in theology doesn't completely undermine it, its more an interesting genealogical flavour to the discipline, without going into the semi-religious faith that some people have in market processes.

Yeah, if I just squint a little, and hold the paper up to the light, and if I close my good eye and focus on a point in the middle distance, why, I can see it! A classic supply curve in the shape of our saviour's face!

Kama wrote: »

Hehe it was a techno-booster utopian thing; I don't count on it happening, but I'd be *very* interested in what would happen if replication and open-source design became widespread, and has interesting ramifications in terms of ownership of the means of production, imo.

Heh. I remember in my early days of internet access loggin into a Marxist IRC channel and outlining my vision for machine-communism; a utopian state where machines look after the production of basic goods - food, housing, clothing - leaving its citizens free to pursue their hearts' true desires. A nation of philosophers, artists and dreamers.

It met a somewhat muted reception so I got bored and started quoting Rage Against the Machine lyrics at them.

DadaKopf wrote: »

Dependency theory, developed by UN economists Andre Gunder Frank (who worked with and broke from Milton Friedman) and Raoul Prebisch, made a very strong case showing how capitalism generates unequal development both within and between countries. Dependency theory sought to explain the underlying economic structures of global trade and then develop a solution to this - developing countries should, temporarily, de-link their economies from rich countries and trade among themselves.

Forgot to read this one. Would be interested in knowing why developing countries didn't do this? Too much exterior pressure?

DadaKopf wrote: »

Another interesting finding recently is by the New Economics Foundation in the UK which compared EUROSTAT figures measuring people's 'subjective well-being' in the UK (as they have across the EEC since the 1970s) with income per capita (GNI); the study found that since the 1970s until the 1990s, people's subjective well-being rose with increased income, but past a certain point, income continued to increase but well-being remained static.

Well, I wouldn't say that's news or anything. Most studies of employee satisfaction indicate that income matters to a certain level and after that people concern themselves more with other things. If anything, this is more evidence that inequality (of incomes anyway) doesn't matter because once everyone is at a certain base level other things become more important.

(btb, you posted just before I started writing this so I'll get back to you later, by which I mean earlier but tomorrow).

DadaKopf

Earthhorse wrote:

Income inequality is an okay measure but PPP is better again. I would agree with Feldstein, that income inequality is not such a big deal once everyone's lot is on the increase. Whilst it might not be fair that growth results in a disproportionate accrual to the already well off, it is fairer than nothing accruing to the less well off while the already well off remain so.

Funny you should mention this. 'A rising tide lifts all boats', eh? Today, a health analyist spoke in Dublin. He's compared the links between income, inequality and health across countries. In his view, health inequality is much more strongly linked to inequality than income alone. So, in other words, inequality of income impacts the whole of society's life chances. So, as incomes rise and inequality rises, the health of many is adversely affected. That itself is a symptom of wider social factors.

And anyway, PPP is only relevant when comparing inequality between countries; I don't see what point you're making. PPP is simply a useful (but necessarily crude) tool for comparing real incomes across countries (as opposed to international comparative measures derived from exchange rates). PPP can reveal nothing about inequality within countries.

Kama

Earthhorse wrote:

If what you are really interested in is the experience of workers then why not use the language they would to describe that experience?

Well, for example, i often hear people speak of 'whoring' themselves in reference to work, and of having to 'suck (koka-noodles)'. Sucking Satan's (koka-noodles) in Bill Hicks terms. The language and experience of forced degradation isn't entirely inaccurate. Yes, it has a value judgement, but I'd argue whether this is imposed as you say. If anything, the biological and bodily metaphors are closer to reality than an abstracted concept. The Marxist phrase is emotive, but accurate for many.

We should measure outcomes, such as adult literacy, mortality rates etc., but focusing on them, particularly ones which we have no idea are achievable e.g. full equality, might not be helpful.

I agree, I'm not actually a proponent of full equality, I just think that the optimum level of inequality is far lower than a less regulated market supplies; which loses me points with both my socialist and capitalist friends. Arguing both in terms of efficiency and equity. If it was all a rational choice thing, we'd decide what we want, and then choose a system on that basis, though obviously that's not how the world works, power and path dependence are far more important imo. But if it is shown that a more socialized strategy delivers better overall on basic indicators such as mortality and education, I look on that as a strong argument for it. Similarly, showing the externality costs of inequality is a strong argument for greater equity, without getting into anything too value-laden.

The whole picture is everything that plays into quality of life.

Given that there is dispute A: on what constitutes quality of life and B: how one could then measure that, I don't think we have access to this 'whole picture', if it exists. Picture is a 2D metaphor, whereas my position is that what the 'picture' looks like depends on perspective, which depends on values and social position. Which to me is a generally helpful way to think about ideology, that's it's positional, rather than X has/hasn't value judgements, and accounts for people holding different views without saying 'X is wrong because he is ideological', which always begs the question...

DadaKopf

Given that there is dispute A: on what constitutes quality of life and B: how one could then measure that, I don't think we have access to this 'whole picture', if it exists. Picture is a 2D metaphor, whereas my position is that what the 'picture' looks like depends on perspective, which depends on values and social position. Which to me is a generally helpful way to think about ideology, that's it's positional, rather than X has/hasn't value judgements, and accounts for people holding different views without saying 'X is wrong because he is ideological', which always begs the question...

Totally, dude.

Been reading some interesting articles recently about Marxian international relations theory. I won't bore anyone with the details, just to say that within Marxist circles, these kinds of discussions are happening constantly. It's not a calcified ideology, it's a living, breathing entity. Importantly, it notes that figures like Antonio Gramsci, Ernst Bloch, Georg Lucácks and Leon Trotsky were scratching their heads about why the revolution didn't happen, why European countries turned to fascism. In other words, they were challenging the dogmatic ideas put forth by orthodox Marxists who explained everything in terms of pure, rational economics.

In other words, the theory didn't fit reality at the time, so it changed. And, today, the same open discussion is happening. This article in question seriously challenges the left's 'blood for oil' logic used to explain the invasion of Iraq. But this is dragging things off-topic.

Kama

Yeh, ideology seemed to be coming up a lot; OP is 'your understanding of socialism' so it's not exactly off-thread. Don't think understanding of and choice between political-economic systems can really be discussed without some kind of ideology. Marxist lines of thought have more attention to ideology, but this doesn't make those who pay less attention less ideological, in my view.

I forget who (possibly Zizek, possibly someone earlier) said that saying your position is 'non-ideological' is a supremely ideological position; I'm pretty down with that. Saying 'ideology is what Marxists/Greens/whoever have' seems pretty sterile and ... um ... ideological to me.

Which isn't 'it's all ideological' and do a flat relativism; but it does mean I'm *very* interested in comparative outcomes between regime-types. Mortality is as close as I think is possible to a 'brute fact', though the weighting of outcome indicators to come to a 'whole picture' would imo reflect ideology in respective priorities.

Infant mortality by class brings in a little more positionality, but regardless of social ideology, dying that young by virtue of privileged birth is impossible (in my view) to justify on any grounds of justice or fairness. It's a important base indicator in my view.

DadaKopf

I forget who (possibly Zizek, possibly someone earlier) said that saying your position is 'non-ideological' is a supremely ideological position; I'm pretty down with that. Saying 'ideology is what Marxists/Greens/whoever have' seems pretty sterile and ... um ... ideological to me.

Could be. Or Terry Eagleton.

Kama

Not sure, nm. Relevant point to me though, is that the Left, conceptually, went around calling the other side ideological for quite a while, saying workers had 'False Consciousness' etc before the reflexive penny dropped.

The same self-criticism doesn't sem to have arrived on the other side of the fence. 'Ideological' remains a useful slur. There's interesting (or boring ) linkages there with 'post-ideological' pragmatisms, socialist or otherwise. But the basic point am after is that there are multiple 'big pictures', each of which may be true, but partial; ideology as position and perspective.

Earthhorse, I suspect we actually have very similar positions on a practical level. Georgist geoeconomics is something I've been meaning to go back to, it has an interesting array of socialist and libertarian adherents, due to not distorting markets and competiton overly, while allowing upstream taxation for government and social projects. Seen some suggestions for it funding Basic Income or Citizen Dividends, which ties with what we were discussing in reference to income disparity, basic needs, and human happiness. I'm a big fan of upstream solutions rather than downstream cleanups, across a lot of areas.

Put plainly, if a capitalist system (of which there can be many variants) is generating wealth rather than appropriating it, my objections are far fewer; but historically, appropriation in a zero-sum sense (from Land Enclosure to capital markets to current IP) law seems dominant.

If this is due to 'distortion' from power, information asymmetry, greater voice, whatever, it only underlines the need (imo) for economics to be theoretically sensitive to power rather than elide it. Which from my 4 small years of economics in university, it ain't.

brianthebard

DadaKopf wrote: »

Totally, dude.

Been reading some interesting articles recently about Marxian international relations theory. I won't bore anyone with the details, just to say that within Marxist circles, these kinds of discussions are happening constantly. It's not a calcified ideology, it's a living, breathing entity. Importantly, it notes that figures like Antonio Gramsci, Ernst Bloch, Georg Lucácks and Leon Trotsky were scratching their heads about why the revolution didn't happen, why European countries turned to fascism. In other words, they were challenging the dogmatic ideas put forth by orthodox Marxists who explained everything in terms of pure, rational economics.

In other words, the theory didn't fit reality at the time, so it changed. And, today, the same open discussion is happening. This article in question seriously challenges the left's 'blood for oil' logic used to explain the invasion of Iraq. But this is dragging things off-topic.

Links please dude?

Earthhorse

brianthebard wrote: »

You suggested things were getting off topic so I’ve only answered points I thought related to the original post.

Just didn't want to detract from your thread which seemed to be a sort of poll of peoples' undestanding of socialism and communism. It's stuck frimly in this territory now so respond to whatever you want.

brianthebard wrote: »

That’s just plain wrong, Marx spent a long long time analysing the capitalist model before putting forth his ideas about what was wrong with it. Furthermore he never prescribed any specific form of government, other than communal based (if he even did that) and Marxists such as Adorno continued to analyse the capitalist system (see Culture industry again without putting forward prescriptive ideals on how to change it.

Well, that's equally unhelpful in my opinion. "I can tell you what's wrong with you but I don't have the cure".

brianthebard wrote: »

The workers are suppressed by low wages, long hours, and the force of industrialists that collaborates with each others. (as well as controlling the means of production and capital in the economy).

That's not an explanation of how it's fundamental to the model; merely an assertion of what you believe is taking place.

brianthebard wrote: »

Marxism is not a prescription (just to reiterate). Each situation is unique. For instance in Scandinavia and Iceland, there is no immediate threat to social democrat countries sovereignty. They have therefore been privileged to create a system of government which does not have to include Nationalism.

Earthhorse wrote: »

So, are the means of production in the hands of workers in Scandinavian countries or are they still following a broadly capitalist model underpinned by strong socialist leanings?

...

brianthebard wrote: »

Well you yourself suggested the invisible hand has just been reformed to be secular, so yeah you will. Please provide an example on the capitalist front then and I’ll better understand your position.

Might be more helpful to think of this in terms of the ongoing debate about language and ideology.

Kama wrote: »

Well, for example, i often hear people speak of 'whoring' themselves in reference to work, and of having to 'suck (koka-noodles)'. Sucking Satan's (koka-noodles) in Bill Hicks terms.

In my experience, such language is used in a tongue in cheek manner or by people who will use the worst language to describe every experience (the "women are insane", "men are bastards" brigade). It might not be entirely inaccurate of some people's experience, or even of some experience of all people, but at a macro level it absolutley imposes a value judgment over all of everyone's experience. You can talk about things using emotive language if you want but be prepared for a lot of the information about that experience to be lost when doing so.

Kama wrote: »

I agree, I'm not actually a proponent of full equality, I just think that the optimum level of inequality is far lower than a less regulated market supplies; which loses me points with both my socialist and capitalist friends.

You poor thing!

What I'd like to see is continual improvement of the existing model rather than a revolution of any kind because I agree that more equality can be achieved and, more importantly, that there can be a decent standard for everyone.

Kama wrote: »

Given that there is dispute A: on what constitutes quality of life and B: how one could then measure that, I don't think we have access to this 'whole picture', if it exists. Picture is a 2D metaphor, whereas my position is that what the 'picture' looks like depends on perspective, which depends on values and social position. Which to me is a generally helpful way to think about ideology, that's it's positional, rather than X has/hasn't value judgements, and accounts for people holding different views without saying 'X is wrong because he is ideological', which always begs the question...

Is there a dispute on what constitutes quality of life? I'm not so sure, though there may be a dispute about what priority the constituent parts might have. Value judgements have to be made eventually but I would rather we didn't front load them.

The data to get the whole picture is available to us now more than ever. We just have to get better at sharing it, as argued by Hans Rosling in this video (clip is around 20 mintues long and data sharing isn't the focus of it so you may wish to skip).

Kama wrote: »

I forget who (possibly Zizek, possibly someone earlier) said that saying your position is 'non-ideological' is a supremely ideological position; I'm pretty down with that. Saying 'ideology is what Marxists/Greens/whoever have' seems pretty sterile and ... um ... ideological to me.

Sounds a lot like the atheism requires as much fate as theism argument. It is not that I don't have ideology but that I'd like my model not to. Maybe I can't remove that entirely but I can try. Just like I'm prejudicial but I'd like my justice system not to be, or my view is subjective but I'd like my science not to be.

Kama wrote: »

Earthhorse, I suspect we actually have very similar positions on a practical level.

Probably. We should hang out sometime. You can bring a suppressed proletarian and I'll bring some bourgeoisie strawberries.

Kama wrote: »

Put plainly, if a capitalist system (of which there can be many variants) is generating wealth rather than appropriating it, my objections are far fewer; but historically, appropriation in a zero-sum sense (from Land Enclosure to capital markets to current IP) law seems dominant.

Well, that brings me back to my original point which is that the capitalist system can support many different things, should the actors in that system wish it. I disagree that the game is zero-sum by the way, more like zero-some-sum, and we can move it to some-sum.

I know that makes no literal sense, you get what I'm saying!

Earthhorse

DadaKopf wrote: »

Funny you should mention this. 'A rising tide lifts all boats', eh? Today, a health analyist spoke in Dublin. He's compared the links between income, inequality and health across countries. In his view, health inequality is much more strongly linked to inequality than income alone. So, in other words, inequality of income impacts the whole of society's life chances. So, as incomes rise and inequality rises, the health of many is adversely affected. That itself is a symptom of wider social factors.

Well, yeah, a rising tide but moreso the "real problem is 'not inequality but poverty'". To take an example on health from the very same article:

IMF wrote:

Take the example of Egypt. Comparing its per capita income with that of the United States, Egypt's progress has not been impressive. But it has made huge gains in life expectancy, both in absolute terms and relative to the United States. Life expectancy in Egypt was only 48 years in 1965, compared with 69 years in the United States. By 1995, Egyptian lfe expectancy had risen sharply to 66 years, only 9 years below the U.S. figure for that year.

DadaKopf wrote: »

And anyway, PPP is only relevant when comparing inequality between countries; I don't see what point you're making. PPP is simply a useful (but necessarily crude) tool for comparing real incomes across countries (as opposed to international comparative measures derived from exchange rates). PPP can reveal nothing about inequality within countries.

Nevermind. Long day, long post.

Kama wrote: »

Which from my 4 small years of economics in university, it ain't.

I feel sorrier for you with every post!

brianthebard

Earthhorse all you are doing is arguing for Capitalism, and you've put forth no understanding of Socalism. I'm just going to ask-what do you actually know about Socalism/Communism/Marxism?

Earthhorse

Like I said in my opening post I haven't read much on it, more around it.

Pretty sure I agreed with your summation of Marxism in that post too.

brianthebard

"..." signifies agreement?

Earthhorse

No. In my opening post I agreed with your summation of Marxism.

The ellipsis is only in the last post only as a breaker. Sorry if it came across as curt.

brianthebard

OK, it seemed like you weren't commenting.

brianthebard

http://www.marxists.org/index.htm

Damn I love the way socialists waive property rights! Free documents for all!

Kama

You can talk about things using emotive language if you want but be prepared for a lot of the information about that experience to be lost when doing so.

Contra, you can attempt to remove value and emotion from thought, and a lot of the information about the lived experience is lost. Your argument was that people don't naturally describe work in such terms, in my xp they do, of times. Something is lost in either case, but neither is utterly invalid imo.

What I'd like to see is continual improvement of the existing model rather than a revolution of any kind because I agree that more equality can be achieved and, more importantly, that there can be a decent standard for everyone.

That's almost a perfect definition of a meliorist socialist agenda btw
Damn I love agreeing with people!

And don't be sorry for me, I'm looking forward to those delicious strawberries...

Earthhorse

brianthebard wrote: »

http://www.marxists.org/index.htm

Damn I love the way socialists waive property rights! Free documents for all!

You're not...you're not actually suggesting I go and read up on the subject, are you? Because that sounds too much like hard work.

Kama wrote: »

That's almost a perfect definition of a meliorist socialist agenda btw
Damn I love agreeing with people!

God damnit, I ain't fer it, I'm agin it! Ah nah, I knew I was more "left wing" than my initial position may have implied. Good to know I'm a meliorist socialist though; I'll have to remember that next time I'm at the doctors.

Kama wrote: »

And don't be sorry for me, I'm looking forward to those delicious strawberries...

It's just...all that economics. I avoided economics modules as much as possible in college.

And, eh, about those strawberries...

*runs out of thread*

Rossibaby

Socialism basically is an ending of exploitation of man by man. The {power} means of production,distribution and exchange are transferred from the capitalist bourgeois class to the proletariat, or working class.In socialism, private property is seen as the root of all of societies ills, and is a fundamental in the establishment of secondary fundamentals of our society such as imperialism.

Marxism is a scientific process, analysing situations throughout history to find a scientific solution to the way society is run.To give a brief example of a societies develoments we can first take roman times,say the masters with bare-faced slavery,this then moved on and we have feudalism, and now we have employers and 'wage slaves' etc...it is impossible to get into deep details of socialist ideas in a post like this but some general points will have to suffice.

Socialists wish a complete uproot of society within capitalism,they question everything and seek justifcation for the way the world is run,they dont simply enter this world and live how they are told,they see a better system and ask why not try it?
people have huge misconceptions about socialism,in fact NO true socialist country has ever existed.cuba,the USSR etc etc were never near true socialism because the workers were not in control of the means of distribution,production and exchange.there is a contradiction within the capitalist system which leads to massive inequalities and unsustainable structures.socialists are determined to raise class conscoiusness of the workers to mobilise them to change their relationship to the means of production.marx said capitalism will inevitably collapse and socialism will be the step after[then communism].this is incorrect imo,it will only be the next step with the work of revolutionaries and mobilisation of the great majority[the workers]..marx did not live in the age of imperialism and V.Lenin did a great job on taking marxism on abit,vanguard party theory etc etc

The biggest misconception is that socialism is repressive or a regime,this is totally incorrect and faulty systems calling themselves socialist when they are clearly nothing like it has tarnished the theory[plus proUSA media etc] the very essence of socialism is that the working people will have control,doesnt sound too repressive does it?also i would just like to clear up that people like chavez[though i admire him greatly] are not socialists,cuba was not socialist,no nation has EVER been,so the excuse [socialism doesnt work] just doesnt fly in reality when it hasnt even been implemented.
you can also not be a socialist without being a communist[as communism is the next step after socialism].therefore anyone who says ''im a socialist but not a communist' isnt worth a damn,they are social democrats or reformists,they seek to take capitalism and patch it up short term for short term success.

anyways hope this post helped someone

asdasd

Marxism is a scientific process

And my ass is a giant talking tomato. Science actually produces falsifiable theories. On the other hand the cult of Marx can argue like this:

no nation has EVER been[socialist]

even though all communists, marxists and fellow travelers acknowledged the Soviet Union ( and later China) to be Marxist; even though Marxist economics( what little of it there is) demands the takeover of the "means of production" by the proletariat through the State in a "proletarian dictatorship" ( clearly there in the Communist Manifesto); and even though the different forms of Marxisms were applied all around the world from extremist China - the cultural revolution - and Cambodia, to less extremist Eastern Europe (where certain Market systems were allowed and thus these people were freer); and even though the sum total of all peoples who lived under Marxism is more than the population of the Earth when Marx was alive Marxism has not been tried.

This is no science. It is a cult.

nesf

Rossibaby wrote: »

Socialism basically is an ending of exploitation of man by man.

It's closer to a delusion that man is capable of not exploiting man, but whatever. Marxism as a science though, seriously, just no.

brianthebard wrote: »

What do people think?

Socialism is an ideal and a nice one in many ways if you overlook the practical problems of implementing it. "From those according to their ability to those according to their need" is what really sums up both the optimism and practical problems of socialism in its most basic form for me. It would be great if people actually would obey this maxim but human nature just doesn't seem to be inclined to such extremes of self sacrifice for the common good. It's an oversimplification of Marx's ideas, but it's about as good as an analysis of his system that I can give you.

nesf

DadaKopf wrote: »

So you're saying 'the market' is the best way to optimally distribute resources in a way that ensures equality.

Is there a better way to distribute resources though? Planned economies have always had serious problems with it. Is market based distribution combined with a redistribution of profits better than a centralised or planned system in modern Marxist literature? (genuine question, I'm curious about the how the literature has changed after the results of the communist experiments have come to light over the past decade).

asdasd

genuine question, I'm curious about the how the literature has changed after the results of the communist experiments have come to light over the past decade

It hasnt. You cant be a reformist Marxist, so to accept the market system at all is to be a heretical social democrat. Once a marxist reforms, and accepts market mechamisms he is expunged from the left, or the party ( if a party) splits leaving behind the marxist spliner groups.

Rossibaby

asdasd wrote: »

And my ass is a giant talking tomato. Science actually produces falsifiable theories. On the other hand the cult of Marx can argue like this:



even though all communists, marxists and fellow travelers acknowledged the Soviet Union ( and later China) to be Marxist; even though Marxist economics( what little of it there is) demands the takeover of the "means of production" by the proletariat through the State in a "proletarian dictatorship" ( clearly there in the Communist Manifesto); and even though the different forms of Marxisms were applied all around the world from extremist China - the cultural revolution - and Cambodia, to less extremist Eastern Europe (where certain Market systems were allowed and thus these people were freer); and even though the sum total of all peoples who lived under Marxism is more than the population of the Earth when Marx was alive Marxism has not been tried.

This is no science. It is a cult.

you misunderstand what 'dictatorship of the proletariat' means,but dont let that get in the way of nonsense

Rossibaby

nesf wrote: »

It's closer to a delusion that man is capable of not exploiting man, but whatever. Marxism as a science though, seriously, just no.



Socialism is an ideal and a nice one in many ways if you overlook the practical problems of implementing it. "From those according to their ability to those according to their need" is what really sums up both the optimism and practical problems of socialism in its most basic form for me. It would be great if people actually would obey this maxim but human nature just doesn't seem to be inclined to such extremes of self sacrifice for the common good. It's an oversimplification of Marx's ideas, but it's about as good as an analysis of his system that I can give you.

maybe no-one will make such sacrifices in the bourgeois classes or labour aristocracy,but im sure the 100s of millions living in poverty might take that risk.and i hate that little quote there,it is used as a tool to misguide and simplify marxism to a utopian ideology,which it is not really.

and by scientific i meant his analysis was based on facts and on history.james connolly often referred to 'scientific socialism' ie.marxism,but what did james know

asdasd

and by scientific i meant his analysis was based on facts and on history

And by scientific the rest of us mean based on a falsifable theory which conforms to empirical facts. Marxism is about as scientific as Intelligent design.

you misunderstand what 'dictatorship of the proletariat' means,but dont let that get in the way of nonsense

Pray, use that gian Marxist brain, and enlighten us.

but im sure the 100s of millions living in poverty might take that risk

the hundreds of millions who lived in the abject stultupying poverty of the cultural revolution took the risk of capitalism and are 500% better off for it. Nevertheless this wont falsify your "scientific" theories.

Marxism = cult.

And this is the last from me. There is only so much sloganeering as argument I can take, and getting the utopian to change his opinion is like teaching a pig to sing; not good for your blod pressure, uncomfortable for the pig , and he aint going to sing.

nesf

Rossibaby wrote: »

but im sure the 100s of millions living in poverty might take that risk.and i hate that little quote there,it is used as a tool to misguide and simplify marxism to a utopian ideology,which it is not really

But you are talking about a utopia, a magical place where man does not exploit man despite man doing so throughout the whole of known human history.

Kama

in fact NO true socialist country has ever existed.

For me, this is an unhelpful approach; it requires a perfect state of affairs to have existed, and justifies itself by the absence. Eternal regress imo.

Perhaps if take out the 'true' word its easier to examine actual systems and what happens, rather than pooh-poohing on the basis that they aren't perfect. No 'true' democracy has ever existed, no 'true' free market has ever existed, and so forth. Exact same position occurs with 'hard' free marketereers; any problems, market failure, whatever, are because it's 'not free enough', it's like God-of-the-gaps, endlessly moving target.

Talking about 'true' or 'perfect' systems I find quite boring and unhelpful, regardless of what intellectual system is being advocated. Utopian ideology eitherways.

"From those according to their ability to those according to their need" is what really sums up both the optimism and practical problems of socialism in its most basic form for me...It's closer to a delusion that man is capable of not exploiting man, but whatever.

The well-worn Russian joke comes to mind; under capitalism, man exploits his fellow man. Under communism, it's the exact opposite!

Eh, I occassionally suffer from the 'delusion' that people are capable of not exploting each other; even seem it in practice a few times. You're probably overstating the case on the capability; yes we are capable of exploiting each other, but we are also capable of not doing so.

As a tangent (oh noes more ideology!), we can look at the behavioural economics research showing that studying economics makes one more likely to defect in Prisoners Dilemma, and less likely to contribute to charity. Systems have reflexive effects on their participants; a world of atomized completely self-interested monad individuals chasing their utility preference is also a 'utopian ideology' imo; it doesn't correspond to reality but can cause reality to increasingly mirror it.

Much as in attempting to construct markets, how to make a system which encourages co-operation seems a worthy goal, and making systems which penalise altruism and cooperation seems equally a effort in social engineering. Modeling humans as either entirely self-interested or throroughly altruistic (to me) is inevitably a partial picture, excluding a chunk of reality eitherways.

Marxism as a science though, seriously, just no.

Well, Marxism has been kinda domesticated into capitalism and market economics by now, in a way. He got quoted approvingly for his analysis of globalization in the FT, and pretty undeniably identified many trends in economics still relevant today. If by science you mean predictive, then agree completely; but then we throw out any human science, including economics. Sccial science as analysis he was gifted at; social science as prophethood has a lousy record for everyone who's had a go at it, regardless of their ideology.

The correct comparison (to me) is with other political economy at the time imo. Marx predicted boom and bust cycles, much of his liberal contemporaries thought markets would just go up. He predicted it would hit periodic crises, such as the Great Depression, that reduced return in home territories would force expansion into new markets, and so on.

brianthebard

asdasd wrote: »

It hasnt. You cant be a reformist Marxist, so to accept the market system at all is to be a heretical social democrat. Once a marxist reforms, and accepts market mechamisms he is expunged from the left, or the party ( if a party) splits leaving behind the marxist spliner groups.

Marx was a social democrat.

nesf wrote: »

But you are talking about a utopia, a magical place where man does not exploit man despite man doing so throughout the whole of known human history.

Who is exploiting whom in Cuba for instance?

nesf

Kama wrote: »

The well-worn Russian joke comes to mind; under capitalism, man exploits his fellow man. Under communism, it's the exact opposite!

Eh, I occassionally suffer from the 'delusion' that people are capable of not exploting each other; even seem it in practice a few times. You're probably overstating the case on the capability; yes we are capable of exploiting each other, but we are also capable of not doing so.

It's a seductive utopia and it's a delusion that I think is noble and worth paying attention to. My argument is more that we can't expect people to do it independently, there are just too many reasons for them not to and that redistribution by the State is more effective than relying on charitable acts if you want even out incomes (though this creates a moral hazard if redistribution is too high so its a double edged sword, the more you redistribute the more you disincentivise people to maximise their effort at earning which can have nasty effects on the economy as a whole). A nice compromise (in my mind) is to make charitable donations tax deductible or some other incentive for people to donate to charity. But I'm highly sceptical of the assertion that man is inherently charitiable towards those who aren't in his close social circle (the point being that we're very good at helping out those around us but much less inclined towards helping those we've never met on average).

Kama wrote: »

As a tangent (oh noes more ideology!), we can look at the behavioural economics research showing that studying economics makes one more likely to defect in Prisoners Dilemma, and less likely to contribute to charity. Systems have reflexive effects on their participants; a world of atomized completely self-interested monad individuals chasing their utility preference is also a 'utopian ideology' imo; it doesn't correspond to reality but can cause reality to increasingly mirror it.

I don't disagree at all, I think the simplistic characterisation of man as purely self-interested in the narrow sense is false, things are more complicated than that. You can broaden this self-interest but you risk diluting the predictive power of the models to nothing if you do that, if you define it right you can make almost anything in the self interests of an individual.

Kama wrote: »

Much as in attempting to construct markets, how to make a system which encourages co-operation seems a worthy goal, and making systems which penalise altruism and cooperation seems equally a effort in social engineering. Modeling humans as either entirely self-interested or throroughly altruistic (to me) is inevitably a partial picture, excluding a chunk of reality eitherways.

I think this is really where the cutting edge of economics/political theory is. Looking at things as an absolute choice between the State or the Market (which is sometimes what traditional "left/right" debate descends to) is simply wrong. The two are completely intertwined and we should (in my view) be looking at ways where we can combine the better sides of the decentralised market with the better sides of the centralised State in order to achieve the highest levels of average/median welfare for our citizens.

Kama wrote: »

Well, Marxism has been kinda domesticated into capitalism and market economics by now, in a way. He got quoted approvingly for his analysis of globalization in the FT, and pretty undeniably identified many trends in economics still relevant today. If by science you mean predictive, then agree completely; but then we throw out any human science, including economics. Sccial science as analysis he was gifted at; social science as prophethood has a lousy record for everyone who's had a go at it, regardless of their ideology.

Yeah, that's pretty much what I was getting at. Marxism has never struck me as either predictive or as treating core tenets as being falsible which I'd consider as being crucial to distinguishing science from non-science.

Kama wrote: »

The correct comparison (to me) is with other political economy at the time imo. Marx predicted boom and bust cycles, much of his liberal contemporaries thought markets would just go up. He predicted it would hit periodic crises, such as the Great Depression, that reduced return in home territories would force expansion into new markets, and so on.

Marx's analysis is certainly something that shouldn't be casually tossed aside. If anything I think Marxism since Marx has helped create a culture where we ignore much of the good things Marx had to add to understanding social behaviour. The boom/bust cycle wasn't uniquely Marx though, it was, from I remember present in earlier economic work though I'd not be able to give you a reference for that.

nesf

brianthebard wrote: »

Who is exploiting whom in Cuba for instance?

Do you honestly believe that no-one is exploiting anyone in Cuba?

brianthebard

nesf wrote: »

Do you honestly believe that no-one is exploiting anyone in Cuba?

I believe the people of Cuba are living exponentially better lives than they did under Batista, in spite of the US embargo, and enjoy some of the best possible education and medical services for instance. Of course you neglected to answer the question at all, and rather just went with sarcasm. Who do you think is being exploited in Cuba, and where is the evidence?

nesf

brianthebard wrote: »

Of course you neglected to answer the question at all, and rather just went with sarcasm. Who do you think is being exploited in Cuba, and where is the evidence?

Not really sarcasm here, I just think that of the two of us the onus is on you to show that exploitation isn't going on since its been so prevalent throughout human history (i.e. we can both probably agree that exploitation has been very common, ergo the task becomes to show systematic exceptions that have lasted over time etc). That and neutral data out of Cuba is notoriously scarce on the ground so it's hard for either of us to definitively show anything about it anyway.

asdasd

Who is exploiting whom in Cuba for instance?

The communist party and the State are exploiting the people of Cuba. They live large and the poor people of Cuba live horrible lives in their third world economy ( which it most clearly was not under Batista - living standards have plummeted).

So bad is Cuba that it has to - like most Communist States - control it's borders so the vast majority of it's citizens cannot leave.

Even then so vile is the place that it's citizens routinely risk life and limb to jump onto non-sea worthy "craft" ( sometimes just pieces of logs) to escape despite the punishment the totalitarian State meets out to the family of the people who just want to travel ( a basic human right). Of course it is a paradise compared to North Korea. When North Korea fall we will come to terms to a State that probably has killed more people than the Nazis.

One of the things I note about Stalinists is that, now that the Soviet Union has fallen, they claim that is wasn't real socialism, but routinely defended the Soviet Union in it's day; and defend Cuba now.

Second thing I notice is that there is very little emigration of Stalinists from evil capitalism to Marxist utopias. This was not the case with other revolutionary movements - the US was once revolutionary by European standards, and the colonies attracted people who wanted a shining city on a hill, or religious freedom, or a new religious colony. Off they went.

Marxists have the choice of two marvelous Marxist States. North Korea and Cuba. While people routinely leave Ireland for Australia, New Zealand, the US and the UK ( and others) there is much love for Marxist societies from our Marxist friends.

But very clearly, from a distance. So why not emigrate? My cousin who lives in Perth thinks Australia a paradise compared to Ireland ( I disagree mainly because I dont like the culture and the distance from Europe). He has acted on this and emigrated to Australia. His particular paradise.

Now why are Marxists not emigrating to Marxism?

Kama

nesf wrote:

It's a seductive utopia and it's a delusion that I think is noble and worth paying attention to.

Hmm, I was actually trying to be sarcastic with the delusional bit; to be more direct, cooperation in groups, reciprocal altruism etc are hardwired into us on an evolutionary level. We didn't get to where we are now as self-interested loners, we did it as cooperative groups. Now, you can make an argument that 'that's a delusion, it weas *really* selfish all the time' on lines like Public Choice theory, or Howard Blooms Lucifer Principle for a true longue duree and so on.

But I'm yet to be convinced that human sharing, compassion, and togetherness is just the epiphenomenon of a self-interested value maximiser. Regard that as a bit of a delusion myself. Like a conspiracy theory or religion, or doctrinaire Marxism or Dawkinsism there's a gnosis, that you know how it really works, and everyone else is 'deluded' with their 'False Consciousness'. Which reeks ideological to me.

You can broaden this self-interest but you risk diluting the predictive power of the models to nothing if you do that, if you define it right you can make almost anything in the self interests of an individual.

While kinda true in a 'well being altruistic is just part of your utility function' way, it's still a reductionism to an ontology of selfishness. To me, this is force the person to fit the model, rather than vice versa. You can flip it, as Adam Smith famously did, and say 'if you define it right, selfishness can be in the interest of the group', or talk about the utility of masochists. With moral development, we tend to see a greater proportion of people viewed as 'self' or 'like self', and treat them as such; this is the goal in much spirituality, or enlightened morality. Yes, you can reduce that and say 'well Gandhi was just selfishly trying to help everyone because that is his selfishness', or 'that inner-school teacher is just doing it because he gets off on helping angry kids' but the point, and lived reality, is lost enroute.

But I'm highly sceptical of the assertion that man is inherently charitiable towards those who aren't in his close social circle (the point being that we're very good at helping out those around us but much less inclined towards helping those we've never met on average).

Agree with this, and I think the neuro-bio and behavioural and game-theory results back it up. In one-offs, cheating is higher. With proximity and repeat play, cooperation increases. Which has an interesting reflex, that if you think of yourself as a self-interested mobile monad then cheating makes more sense to you, on both a basic-intuitive and a game-rational way, and if you have a context distancing and anonymity are high, structurally it's imo more likely.

To me, this is where the cultural element comes in; lots of historical cultures had mechanisms which extended the inclusiveness of the 'close' circle to take advantage of this 'urge to help' which evolution has fairly hardwired in co-operative mammals such as ourselves.

I think this is really where the cutting edge of economics/political theory is...we should (in my view) be looking at ways where we can combine the better sides of the decentralised market with the better sides of the centralised State in order to achieve the highest levels of average/median welfare for our citizens.

I'd agree with this, that's my general position, but have a critical point; the State has been progressively giving up these functions, as have corporations. The state function as a welfare-maximiser (in my view) has been on the way out during neoliberalism, towards a role as an opportunity-maximiser, in line with the self-interested theory 'traders' advocate. (I'm drawing a bit on Bobbitts theory of market-states here). The socialist supplement or synthesis which underlay the world economy in the core states post-war was ideologically rejected in favour of more pure market-based approach, where welfare-maximization is presumed to occur from opportunity-maximization. Perhaps this point seems pedantic, but I don't think these necessarily equate.

Welfare-maximising (to me) seems more characteristic of post-War consensus social democracy, which has been retrenched during the last quarter-century, from Reagan-Thatcher through Bush-Blair, which has emphasised opportunity but denied welfarist rights-based aproaches. When welfare rights are introduced, which don't fit in a market schema, it's called 'socialism', or that's my current naive reading. Opportunity maximising in conditions of inequality imo trends towards an aristocracy of money.

Not really sarcasm here, I just think that of the two of us the onus is on you to show that exploitation isn't going on since its been so prevalent throughout human history (i.e. we can both probably agree that exploitation has been very common, ergo the task becomes to show systematic exceptions that have lasted over time etc).

First, yes exploitation has always occurred, even in matriarchal pre-historic hippy-beloved societies, the fossil record seems to show this, but that's not exactly the issue. What's (I think) pertinent is the degree of exploitation. There have been relatively stable systems with realtively high egality, such as horticultural and other pre-agrarian societies (pre-State gangster-military in Tilly's terms), because this was a more stable equilibrium before expansion and surplus-appropriation became more feasible. If you couldn't steal and store all the local villages apples, the payoff is much lower...

So it can happen, it's not against 'human nature'. We didn't get this far purely by hunting and killing, hugs and loves were key. Overemphasising either to exclude the other seems flawed, which is what I hear when the 'it's human nature' argument is thrown around, human evolution isn't that simple a story, for all that it sounds pleasantly macho and 'realist' it's wrong.

The question (whatever ones ideology) is how in an advanced society with our human autonomy we can engineer and allow the better of our impulses, and 'disincentivise' the worse...

Ostrom

Again, back to an earlier point... Why so much argument on recovering or portraying a true Marxism? The whole point of dialectical presentation was to understand from the point of view of process not component.

The capitalism of Marx's analysis has changed beyond his initial scope, not in terms of the fundamental units, but the global economy is far more nuanced, dependencies have developed, the consequances have reached beyond human exploitation etc...

Utopian, revisionist, fundamental have all made their contributions, in their context, and of their time. In that sense, Capital is not something that should be read politically, trying to situate it is completely counter-intuitive both to the structure of the argument and the method of presentation.

And citing the communist manifesto is completely inappropriate considering both the political nature of the document, and the difference in approach (not to mention content) between that and the publication of Capital

brianthebard

Good points efla. However there are basic very wrong assumptions about what socialism is that needs to be addressed imo. People think that it means the state controls everything, or the state produces everything and you have no choice of products, and that's not necessarily the case. Definitely agree with what you say about reading Capital.

asdasd

Again, back to an earlier point... Why so much argument on recovering or portraying a true Marxism?

one would assume that a science has only one interpreation. Either Marxists want a proletarian revolution or they dont. What Marxist party does not want the takeover by the State of all industries ( and anarchism is not Marxism either).

The whole point of dialectical presentation was to understand from the point of view of process not component.

No idea what this means. if it is a technical language translate it into English, as I would were I translating topics of physics.

The capitalism of Marx's analysis has changed beyond his initial scope, not in terms of the fundamental units, but the global economy is far more nuanced, dependencies have developed, the consequances have reached beyond human exploitation etc...

Cool, feel free to abandon the "science" that did not get this change. The "science" that predicted the immiseration of the proletariat, and the sublimination off the petit-bourgeois into the proletariat seems to be disproved by empirical events. No real science survives empirical opposition - for instance were newtons laws to suggest that hitting a cannonball at any speed at all would send it into space we would have abandoned Newton's law. instead, at low velocities, Newtons laws work perfectly. so we keep them

Utopian, revisionist, fundamental have all made their contributions, in their context, and of their time.

to what, astrology? why should outsiders care given that all of it is a horses-ass.

In that sense,

this is the typical non-sequitor of a typical social scientist. In that sense what exactly? You are leading on from the types of Marxisms. Should we expect the next sentance to follow logically?

Capital is not something that should be read politically, trying to situate it is completely counter-intuitive both to the structure of the argument and the method of presentation.

No, we shouldn't. Capital is a mere list of statistical problems in England , most of it out of date when he wrote it. Most Marxist have not read it. I have. It's ****e.

And citing the communist manifesto is completely inappropriate considering both the political nature of the document, and the difference in approach (not to mention content) between that and the publication of Capital

Marxists are political. and most have only read the communist manifesto - and subsequent Marxists ( like Adorno).

In any case not only is Marxism clearly political, it is clearly economic. And where is the Marxist economics. By which I mean the body of work equal to "bourgeois" economics which explains - mathematically, and verififably - why bourgeois economics - the actual science - is wrong.For instance: supply and demand. Must be wrong. Explain why?

Otherwise this is mere mumbo-jumbo as far from real science as astrology is from astronomy.

and worse, since astology has not killed millions.

I am tired of the Marxist whine of "never been tried". what exactly would you do differently. Seize the assets of the Kulaks, the small businessmen, the middleclasses etc. but do it nicely? Any Marxist State needs the utter control of all economic and civic activity, and it needs to take over that private wealth violently ( for people wont give it up otherwise); without this initial violence it is not Marxist.

Kama

asdasd wrote: »

one would assume that a science has only one interpreation.

Please to tell if quantum mechanics or relativity is the correct interpretation. Is individual or group selection in evolutionary theory 'correct'? Social science is not a natural science, this monological view is dated within hard science and near irrelevant outside; there can be multiple plausble interpretations, whose research programs produce evidence, and you can compare between em. Typically this leads to a wider, more nuanced view than 'individual selection/Keynesianism/Marxism/whatever is right and everything else is pseudoscientific baloney'

If you think of interpretation in science as approach-perspectives rather than one 'big view' then pluralism is quite coherent, and probably more fertile than a hurrah-boo binary approach.

asdasd

if quantum mechanics or relativity is the correct interpretation.

They operate in different spaces, one macro the other micro.

Is individual or group selection in evolutionary theory 'correct'

Both are complentary.

This is the argument that Intelligent Design makes too, by the way. Your theories are not quite certain yet, so how can you criticise ours? We can criticise, even if scientific understanding is imperfect, any pseudo-scientific doctrince which fails emprical tests,ignores the entire corrpus of real academic work ( evolutonary pscyology, neru-science0 and economics, and has been theorectically and practically demolished.

So bye bye Marxism. Dont let the door hit you on the way out.

Kama

Indeed, both are complementary; if so in harder science, even moreso in softer social sciences. I'm not a great fan of Marx, but I do appreciate some of the work has come out of Marxism as a research program. Marxism nowadays is a recognised academic perspective, and you're tilting at windmills with the 'amagad Stalinism' approach.

Even in hard science, an empirical refutation often just causes auxiliary hypotheses to be deployed. Methinks you have an over-pure concept of how science works in practice; the old Kuhnian joke that 'research programs don't die, their advocates do' comes to mind...

Btw which economics is the 'real' economics? Is Austrian in, or out? Keynes? Henry George? Was Myrdal or Hayek 'wrong' in the 73 Nobel prize, or were they complementary? Who is in or out often reflects more on the ideological position than on empirical merits alone.

Ostrom

asdasd wrote: »

one would assume that a science has only one interpreation. Either Marxists want a proletarian revolution or they dont. What Marxist party does not want the takeover by the State of all industries ( and anarchism is not Marxism either).



No idea what this means. if it is a technical language translate it into English, as I would were I translating topics of physics.



Cool, feel free to abandon the "science" that did not get this change. The "science" that predicted the immiseration of the proletariat, and the sublimination off the petit-bourgeois into the proletariat seems to be disproved by empirical events. No real science survives empirical opposition - for instance were newtons laws to suggest that hitting a cannonball at any speed at all would send it into space we would have abandoned Newton's law. instead, at low velocities, Newtons laws work perfectly. so we keep them



to what, astrology? why should outsiders care given that all of it is a horses-ass.


this is the typical non-sequitor of a typical social scientist. In that sense what exactly? You are leading on from the types of Marxisms. Should we expect the next sentance to follow logically?



No, we shouldn't. Capital is a mere list of statistical problems in England , most of it out of date when he wrote it. Most Marxist have not read it. I have. It's ****e.



Marxists are political. and most have only read the communist manifesto - and subsequent Marxists ( like Adorno).

In any case not only is Marxism clearly political, it is clearly economic. And where is the Marxist economics. By which I mean the body of work equal to "bourgeois" economics which explains - mathematically, and verififably - why bourgeois economics - the actual science - is wrong.For instance: supply and demand. Must be wrong. Explain why?

Otherwise this is mere mumbo-jumbo as far from real science as astrology is from astronomy.

and worse, since astology has not killed millions.

I am tired of the Marxist whine of "never been tried". what exactly would you do differently. Seize the assets of the Kulaks, the small businessmen, the middleclasses etc. but do it nicely? Any Marxist State needs the utter control of all economic and civic activity, and it needs to take over that private wealth violently ( for people wont give it up otherwise); without this initial violence it is not Marxist.

I am no Marxist


And Capital is not about right or wrong


The piece you mentioned about out of date statistics is exactly why it needs a neutral reading - it is a limited product of its place and time. I have no immediate political interests so I am staying out of that debate...

As for the presentation of argument, the point to Capital was a critique of political economy, and through the other volumes, an outline of the Capitalist mode of production, (for better or worse) but starting from the abstract unit of the commodity

Ostrom

brianthebard wrote: »

Good points efla. However there are basic very wrong assumptions about what socialism is that needs to be addressed imo. People think that it means the state controls everything, or the state produces everything and you have no choice of products, and that's not necessarily the case. Definitely agree with what you say about reading Capital.

Definately, but my own history is far from extensive so I will say no more.

My posts are a bit unhelpful in the context of your topic, I'm more concerned with 'value free' reading I suppose, so apologies for cutting in

brianthebard

efla wrote: »

Definately, but my own history is far from extensive so I will say no more.

My posts are a bit unhelpful in the context of your topic, I'm more concerned with 'value free' reading I suppose, so apologies for cutting in

No I'd like to hear more, you haven't really outlined what you think socialism should be, but you've said some interesting stuff so far.

nesf

Kama wrote: »

Hmm, I was actually trying to be sarcastic with the delusional bit; to be more direct, cooperation in groups, reciprocal altruism etc are hardwired into us on an evolutionary level. We didn't get to where we are now as self-interested loners, we did it as cooperative groups. Now, you can make an argument that 'that's a delusion, it weas *really* selfish all the time' on lines like Public Choice theory, or Howard Blooms Lucifer Principle for a true longue duree and so on.

But I'm yet to be convinced that human sharing, compassion, and togetherness is just the epiphenomenon of a self-interested value maximiser. Regard that as a bit of a delusion myself. Like a conspiracy theory or religion, or doctrinaire Marxism or Dawkinsism there's a gnosis, that you know how it really works, and everyone else is 'deluded' with their 'False Consciousness'. Which reeks ideological to me.

I don't really buy the Public Choice theory argument as truth but it's an important one to keep in mind I think. Altruism does exist but it's not the rule and the base principle of socialism is that altruism can become the rule in a sense which I'd be very sceptical of. The difference is that the self-interested value maximiser is a modelling tool (in standard economics anyway) rather than an attempt to describe reality in an encompassing way. The self-interested value maximiser is a fairly good predictor of human behaviour in some situations, it's wholly inaccurate in others.

Kama wrote: »

While kinda true in a 'well being altruistic is just part of your utility function' way, it's still a reductionism to an ontology of selfishness. To me, this is force the person to fit the model, rather than vice versa. You can flip it, as Adam Smith famously did, and say 'if you define it right, selfishness can be in the interest of the group', or talk about the utility of masochists. With moral development, we tend to see a greater proportion of people viewed as 'self' or 'like self', and treat them as such; this is the goal in much spirituality, or enlightened morality. Yes, you can reduce that and say 'well Gandhi was just selfishly trying to help everyone because that is his selfishness', or 'that inner-school teacher is just doing it because he gets off on helping angry kids' but the point, and lived reality, is lost enroute.

The purpose of a model is to be a black box into which we put data and get out a reasonable prediction that we can trust rather than any of the bits in the black box actually looking like what the real system looks like. My point about defining is that we're trying to get the model to work rather than trying to describe reality exactly. The actual causality can be as complex as you want, so long as the end result is the same as the prediction that our self-interested automaton as far as our model is concerned.

Kama wrote: »

Agree with this, and I think the neuro-bio and behavioural and game-theory results back it up. In one-offs, cheating is higher. With proximity and repeat play, cooperation increases. Which has an interesting reflex, that if you think of yourself as a self-interested mobile monad then cheating makes more sense to you, on both a basic-intuitive and a game-rational way, and if you have a context distancing and anonymity are high, structurally it's imo more likely.

To me, this is where the cultural element comes in; lots of historical cultures had mechanisms which extended the inclusiveness of the 'close' circle to take advantage of this 'urge to help' which evolution has fairly hardwired in co-operative mammals such as ourselves.

We have an urge to help and we can be altruistic and I wasn't trying to imply that we weren't but it's balanced by our equally strong desire not to be cheated to encourage the first we need some group (like the State or a charity like the Samaritans) to act as intermediaries to see the money/help is well spent/used.

The game theory point is interesting in that it's usually the Prisoners Dilemma that's used to show the self-interested non-altruistic "person". A key point that's been shown by economic experimenters is that the result of "defect-defect" is dependent on the two prisoners being unable to communicate, leave them both communicate and they quickly agree to both co-operate. There is altruism of a sort hardwired into us but it's not a simplistic mechanism and it's quite nuanced.

Kama wrote: »

I'd agree with this, that's my general position, but have a critical point; the State has been progressively giving up these functions, as have corporations. The state function as a welfare-maximiser (in my view) has been on the way out during neoliberalism, towards a role as an opportunity-maximiser, in line with the self-interested theory 'traders' advocate. (I'm drawing a bit on Bobbitts theory of market-states here). The socialist supplement or synthesis which underlay the world economy in the core states post-war was ideologically rejected in favour of more pure market-based approach, where welfare-maximization is presumed to occur from opportunity-maximization. Perhaps this point seems pedantic, but I don't think these necessarily equate.

Personally I think it's just part of the political cycle. We're approaching the peak of neo-liberal small statism and will start back on the road to socialist big statism soon enough. The point being both peaks being unwanted and annoying. The US is slowly starting to move back towards the left, the present financial crisis almost guarantees it. After a decade or two things will have gone too far the other way and we'll see a reversal and some new rebranded form of neo-liberalism will start to gather support.

Kama wrote: »

Welfare-maximising (to me) seems more characteristic of post-War consensus social democracy, which has been retrenched during the last quarter-century, from Reagan-Thatcher through Bush-Blair, which has emphasised opportunity but denied welfarist rights-based aproaches. When welfare rights are introduced, which don't fit in a market schema, it's called 'socialism', or that's my current naive reading. Opportunity maximising in conditions of inequality imo trends towards an aristocracy of money.

The problem is that welfare rights calls are often populist rather than actually good for the economy or the people in the long run. Opportunity is very much necessary and suppressing it too much (i.e. it needs to be suppressed to some degree) is as bad for the people as removing too many welfare rights. The two are intimately intertwined and that is to an extent the problem of "capitalist/socialist false dilemma" debate. It's polarising and simple to preach sure but it often fails to capture the reality of the system.

Kama wrote: »

So it can happen, it's not against 'human nature'. We didn't get this far purely by hunting and killing, hugs and loves were key. Overemphasising either to exclude the other seems flawed, which is what I hear when the 'it's human nature' argument is thrown around, human evolution isn't that simple a story, for all that it sounds pleasantly macho and 'realist' it's wrong.

I certainly agree, and you'll note that I never said that altruism was against human nature. Exploitation is as "natural" as helping for free at cost to yourself those in your close social circle. We unfortunately have a tendency to both look out for ourselves and our families, even to the extent of taking advantage of other families. We are both altruistic and "selfish"* and no amount of wishful thinking will change that. We can, on the other hand, use both these tendencies to generate welfare, both by encouraging our natural tendency towards altruism (by rewarding charity through tax breaks or whatever or by taxing selfishness by taxing inheritance or income etc). We still need to be careful that we don't overly tax or reward either though for fear of overly distorting incentives in a way that damages welfare in the long run.


Sorry for the delay in replying, I'd forgotten totally about this thread.


*selfish here isn't necessarily negative. For instance, I would provide for my son before I'd even consider donating to charity and if I had to make a choice between helping a family member and a random guy off the street both having the identical problem I'd help the family member first even if it meant not being able to help the other person. Most people would be similar if push came to shove I imagine. Who you are in relation to me makes a very big difference about whether and how I would help you. Part of it is reciprocal intentionally but much of it is instinctive on my part at least. I'd help a friend before a stranger and a close family member before a friend and so on.

DadaKopf

nesf wrote:

The purpose of a model is to be a black box into which we put data and get out a reasonable prediction that we can trust rather than any of the bits in the black box actually looking like what the real system looks like. My point about defining is that we're trying to get the model to work rather than trying to describe reality exactly. The actual causality can be as complex as you want, so long as the end result is the same as the prediction that our self-interested automaton as far as our model is concerned.

Very interesting problem here, in light of the global financial meltdown. As I've been reading more about finance, even its champions accept a fundamental flaw: taking measurements and computing them through a model changes the measurements and the model. This happens because, in an interconnected world, measurements (however derived) instantly alter collective human behaviours, thus altering the basis of the theory applied to predict that behaviour. This is one of the reasons for how these 'risk models' have deviated so far from the 'real economy'. Models can never catch up with social reality; they are not scientific, they're social constructions. And, in times of crisis, risk models go out the window.

It's for this reason that I find your previous comment contradictory:

I don't really buy the Public Choice theory argument as truth but it's an important one to keep in mind I think. Altruism does exist but it's not the rule and the base principle of socialism is that altruism can become the rule in a sense which I'd be very sceptical of. The difference is that the self-interested value maximiser is a modelling tool (in standard economics anyway) rather than an attempt to describe reality in an encompassing way. The self-interested value maximiser is a fairly good predictor of human behaviour in some situations, it's wholly inaccurate in others.

You're right to say 'altruism does not exist', but you misunderstand it. Altruism is not a 'thing in itself', it's a social practice, that is, there is not altruism/non-altruism. The construction of altruism into an absolutist, either/or concept serves those who have an interest in undermining political principles such as redistributive social justice. It is not a case of pure altruism versus pure self-interest, it is both/and.

The game theory point is interesting in that it's usually the Prisoners Dilemma that's used to show the self-interested non-altruistic "person". A key point that's been shown by economic experimenters is that the result of "defect-defect" is dependent on the two prisoners being unable to communicate, leave them both communicate and they quickly agree to both co-operate. There is altruism of a sort hardwired into us but it's not a simplistic mechanism and it's quite nuanced.

Yes, it is nuanced. And the experiments clearly show, upon deeper examination of human agency, that humans are not purely rational (as economists assume). Humans have capacity to be rational, but also emotional, bound by habits, memory, social position, phychophysiology, as if these are some forms of defect. Your response may be: 'yes, but I'm talking about the conclusions economists can come to, not those of psychophysiologists'. So by your own adminission, the level which economic dogma has structured our social reality is unacceptable (go back above to my comments on measurement and agency).

Personally I think it's just part of the political cycle. We're approaching the peak of neo-liberal small statism and will start back on the road to socialist big statism soon enough. The point being both peaks being unwanted and annoying. The US is slowly starting to move back towards the left, the present financial crisis almost guarantees it. After a decade or two things will have gone too far the other way and we'll see a reversal and some new rebranded form of neo-liberalism will start to gather support.

Can't disagree here. The economic historian Karl Polanyi in his book The Great Transformation theorised a phenomenon he called the 'double movement': after a period in which the market becomes 'disembedded' from society, a period where it becomes 'embedded' emerges, and back again, ad infinitum. Writing in the 1950s, his argument was precient; researchers since the 1990s have been revisiting his ideas, and we are IMO, seeing the return to a re-embedding of the market - in other words, bringing it more under political control. But I do also think we'll see the emergence of a hybrid whereby a stronger role for states in economies will be coupled with continued privatisation (or at least public-private partnerships) and the outsourcing of government. What would prevent this would be a strong, cohesive human rights/labour movement, and this is possible, but starting from much more difficult conditions where workers and the middle-class continue to be immiserated, made vulnerable and literally bored into inaction.

The problem is that welfare rights calls are often populist rather than actually good for the economy or the people in the long run.

Should society serve the economy, or the economy serve society? I would gladly sacrifice growth (untenable in any case given global environmental destruction) for equality within a strong democratic framework. No doubt welfare demands can be 'populist', but isn't that often what's right?

nesf

DadaKopf wrote: »

Very interesting problem here, in light of the global financial meltdown. As I've been reading more about finance, even its champions accept a fundamental flaw: taking measurements and computing them through a model changes the measurements and the model. This happens because, in an interconnected world, measurements (however derived) instantly alter collective human behaviours, thus altering the basis of the theory applied to predict that behaviour. This is one of the reasons for how these 'risk models' have deviated so far from the 'real economy'. Models can never catch up with social reality; they are not scientific, they're social constructions. And, in times of crisis, risk models go out the window.

Um, all science is a social construction I don't really get your "it's not science" point to be honest. The risk models are and were a mess and many economists could have told you this long before this crisis. There are strict technical reasons (mathematical in nature) for why the risk models that were so popular don't work very well.

DadaKopf wrote: »

You're right to say 'altruism does not exist', but you misunderstand it. Altruism is not a 'thing in itself', it's a social practice, that is, there is not altruism/non-altruism. The construction of altruism into an absolutist, either/or concept serves those who have an interest in undermining political principles such as redistributive social justice. It is not a case of pure altruism versus pure self-interest, it is both/and.

Eh, I said altruism does exist not altruism does not exist. Wouldn't redistributive social justice come from a beginning argument that the social practice of altruism is not our default behaviour (which is equivalent in my view to saying that altruism is not the rule)? We need a State to redistribute because if left to our own devices we won't do it enough outside of our own small personal "circle" to maximise welfare in the State while at the same time being aware of the distortions that too much redistribution brings which also negatively affect welfare in the State.

DadaKopf wrote: »

Yes, it is nuanced. And the experiments clearly show, upon deeper examination of human agency, that humans are not purely rational (as economists assume). Humans have capacity to be rational, but also emotional, bound by habits, memory, social position, phychophysiology, as if these are some forms of defect. Your response may be: 'yes, but I'm talking about the conclusions economists can come to, not those of psychophysiologists'. So by your own adminission, the level which economic dogma has structured our social reality is unacceptable (go back above to my comments on measurement and agency).

But what you're speaking of here is a naive implementation of economic theory that assumes rationality in all situations rather than testing for rationality and only assuming it in situations where it holds. Much of modern economic theory is about working past and/or around the rationality assumption that is so limiting (and which doesn't hold much of the time).

DadaKopf wrote: »

Should society serve the economy, or the economy serve society?

Is that not similar to your point on altruism above that those who want the market to to play a smaller role in society frame the question in this way to make it seem that there is a choice between the two here? That we can either serve society or the economy and not both.