Newbie safe zone(ask any simple questions)

AngryHippie

Many of Hitlers statements and ideals were socialist. But the fact that he was a ruthless anti-semetic with a god complex turned what few socialist concepts he had into a total farce. He shouldn't really be considered a socialist. Because of his actions and his justification for them. How much of it actually came from the people, and how much of it did they know about ?

Soldie

AngryHippie wrote: »

He shouldn't really be considered a socialist.

Of course not! Real socialism has never been tried! The likes of Pol Pot, Stalin & Mao were not socialists!

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

nesf

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

In fairness they were escaping communism which is just one implementation of socialism and one that many socialists abhor. We've had far different experiences with the type of socialism that's dominated politics in the Nordic countries etc.

It's a broad church, I don't think you can dismiss socialism simply because communism didn't work.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

nesf

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

We're both well versed enough in academics to know that terms evolve in politics and what Marx's opinion was on what socialism is is not the end of the story. Classical liberalism has come a long way since the 19th century for instance.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

nesf

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

While we have Pinochet. A man who managed to dramatically rise the quality of life for his people in exchange for just a "handful" of disappearances.

Utopian socialism is very much vulnerable to authoritarianism but it is not the sum total of socialist thought. Popper drew the distinction between Utopian socialism and a more piecemeal approach to socialism typified in the Nordic model. They're different animals.

I'm considering splitting off a lot of the side discussions in this thread at the moment.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Lockstep

AngryHippie wrote: »

Many of Hitlers statements and ideals were socialist. But the fact that he was a ruthless anti-semetic with a god complex turned what few socialist concepts he had into a total farce. He shouldn't really be considered a socialist. Because of his actions and his justification for them. How much of it actually came from the people, and how much of it did they know about ?

Communists/socialists/social democrats etc were also interned in the concentration camps, identity marker being the red triangle.

Socialism is the broadest of political ideologies, but at almost all strand's heart, is the idea that humans are co-operative beings. Not really compatible with Hitler's ideology (given racial stratification)


However, I have no time for extreme forms of socialism or the concept that socialism requires a revolutionary vanguard.

roygmitchell

I have to say that I found the political compass test really useful!
It just cleared up a lot of things. Really well written and meaningful passages that teach an enlighten you. It also points out which Irish political party you may be most aligned with...if you compare your map with the Irish political parties' map. Cheers for the recommendation and I would further add it as a recommended must try for all newbies!

gotBass

Firstly I'm glad this is a newbie safe zone - here comes my silly questions:

Does anyone think that there is a way to balance, capitalism, and whats right and wrong
Will Ethical standards ever apply, or will we have the same global downturn that we are now in 25-30 years from now.

I'm sure that many will think that ethics have no place alongside capitalism, but one can hope...

turgon

Well, define what you mean by ethics.

If you mean that the banks acted unethically in taking in risky debt etc then no, ethics will continue to suffer. Why? Because each time these bankers act unethically and put the risks of their customers and themselves last they just come crawling up to the government. And the government will give them all the money they need, and refuse to punish them for a lack of ehtics.

Thus is the "self-correcting" (or something like that, me not equal to an economist) thing in capitalism is gotten rid of, and the real risk of risky deals is removed.

So he lessons of the bank story for me is that a lack of ethics means the government will not allow you to suffer losses. Which makes having no ethics and beneficial thing to oneself, financially.

I also think its up to the consumer to buy from ethical companies.

gotBass

buying from ethical companies I'm in favour of.

I just think that in the way doctors take a pledge to preserve life etc,

surely bank CEO's have a duty of care to share holders and account holders.
really they looked after themselves by focusing only on every quarterly result.

Surely one of them took a moment by the photocopier to think, "holy Sh*t, we are way to highly exposed,it's in the interests of those I represent to reduce this exposure"
I suppose they did that but forgot that ordinary Joes are share holders too.

I just feel that if ethical behaviour was taught throughout 3rd level and graduate programs then the junior guys become more senior hopefully they take the ethics up the chain with them.

it's wishful thinking but ultimately if we could get this in place the future might not be as bad....

I'm all for risk and reward, but common sense has to fit in somewhere. Failure to do this would translate to telling the next generation that we don't give a damn about them.

Joycey

OK ive got one:

What is meant when the "revolutionary vanguard" is spoken about? Twas mentioned a few posts ago and I dont have an accurate idea of what it means.

Some kind of violent revolutionary force which brings about socialist change in Marxist ideology? If this is what it is, is this the force which then retains "order" (control) under the new state?

Just give me what Marx (or whoever it was/is who wrote/writes about it) means by it, not some skewed version from either side plz.

Joycey

Just thought of another couple of (related) questions:

How mainstream is Austrian school economics? Is it just libertarians and internet people who actually propound it or is it popular in America/Europe?

Is a belief that humans are rationally choosing individuals fundamental to the system? Without this belief would the school of thought be workable?

Is there any mainstream school or amalgam of schools of economics which makes provision for the fact that humans are not capable of "rational" choice (and certainly not in every instance)? If so what are they?

Thx

turgon

gotBass wrote: »

surely bank CEO's have a duty of care to share holders and account holders.
really they looked after themselves by focusing only on every quarterly result.

Damn right! But they squandered it all and how are they being rewarded for their incompetency? Bailout.

This government isnt pursuing a policy that rewards ethics. Instead the probability of the government giving you money is inverse proportional to the lack of ethics you have, it would seem.

I dont know where all the blame lies. I mean, could you make an argument that the CEO's weren't being monitored by their shareholders? In the case of the right action being taken (ie let the banks fail for their mistakes instead of expecting everyone else to support them), then the shareholders would have suffered. Thus, it is the responsibility of the shareholders to monitor those in charge.

I fully agree with your education proposal. Civics at JC is a really weak subject (me and my friends had a 2euro bet for who would finish the JC exam first - I left after 33 minutes and still got an A). I think there should be maybe a subject Civics and Government. Explaining not only the Irish governmental system, but also how it compares to others. Also explaining the meaning of policies such as left and right. Preparing people to be smart electors.

But in fairness., its probably better for the govt to keep the electorate dumb.

gotBass

the Mushroom Act of 2009 - keep em in the dark etc....
If the parties are persisting on this they are going to get a political hiding in the next few years. they must realise that:

1. Our population is more aware than ever of news events and media alerts.
2. we are ( for the most part) better educated than previous generations.
3. we as a population are aging and with this age comes experience.

In short it will be more difficult to pull the wool over our eyes.
the aul fashioned Cute Hoor thing will, be replaced by a media savvy type.

blogs etc, ( no matter how controversial and sensationalist) at least raise debate and from that comes general awareness, of the goings on.

just look at the forum/blog sites, I wonder how many new posters have sprung up in the past 12/18 months. In short it's a growing movement and long may it continue. the parties need to take note of this.


I'd like to think we're a little better than the sort who says:
"There's an old saying in Tennessee—I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee—that says, fool me once, shame on—shame on you. Fool me—you can't get fooled again."

silverharp

Joycey wrote: »

Is a belief that humans are rationally choosing individuals fundamental to the system? Without this belief would the school of thought be workable?

The article below seemed to be quite readable.


http://mises.org/story/2249

What Do Austrians Mean by "Rational"?
Mises Daily by Michael Rozeff | Posted on 7/26/2006

Joycey

silverharp wrote: »

The article below seemed to be quite readable.


http://mises.org/story/2249

What Do Austrians Mean by "Rational"?
Mises Daily by Michael Rozeff | Posted on 7/26/2006

Cheers for the link.

Found it interesting, but must say that it feels biased to me. I mean, first of all its on a Mises website, which is fair enough, but means that Im fully entitled to treat it as slightly partisan.

A belief has been building up for a while now in me that humans are not "rational" in the way the majority of philosophers of action, or even philosophers of pre-20th century in general tend to portray us as.

I understand completely the point the article makes about the distinction between irrational and rational action being pretty much meaningless, as far as Im concerned every action is as irrational as it is rational, there is no "objective", and hence entirely rationally motivated way to preference one goal, or end, over another.

However Ive come to this conclusion from reading a fair few articles about the experiments in behavioural economics and some other behavioural psychology which this article is retaliating against, and I feel that they are treated very unfairly by this piece. The guy who writes it assumes that their methodology is at fault, in that they are taking as axiomatic certain rules of behaviour, whereby if the experimentee's behaviour does not corelate with these axioms the behaviour is deemed to be "irrational". This is a gross oversimplification and a misrepresentation of most of the articles which I have come across. A deliberate attempt is usually made to find the axioms of classical economics, or any other branch of thought which assumes or requires some conception of human "rationality", or at least choice in self interest in order to operate as the creators intended. It is not arbitrary behavioural predictions generated by the researchers which are usually violated by these experiments, but rather assumptions which are taken for granted by classical economics or the Austrian school.

It would be necessary for me to read Mises himself outside of the context of the article-writers possible bias in order to determine whether something like "rationality" (I know this term has been thrown out by Mises but I cant think of any alternative) is necessary to his theory.

The question really comes down to: why would we expect the markets to find "equilibrium", or to act in a way which we perceive as "rational", if the individual actors which constitute it show no analgous trait? If it is determined that there is not adequate justification for letting the markets do their own thing then this would surely be an absolute refutation of Austrian school economics as it is usually conceived? Im not saying we should throw it out entirely, because most influential schools of thought, such as Marxism, have some great ideas, but to still maintain belief in the validity of a school of economics 100 years after its conception and in the face of contradictory evidence about human behaviour seems to me to be madness.



Edit:

An example: that whole thing about Caplan's Model, where a trade off takes place between a loss of possible predictive powers (cost) and psychic benefits which accord to the self deception which takes place when an individual maintains a "belief" in astrology (benefit). I mean, that just seems like such a contrived notion of human psychology. Does anyone really believe that that's how humans operate nowadays? I know someone who thinks like this, that for every single thing we do that there is some kind of "probability calculator" which works out the costs/benefits of each possible action, but is this actually seen as a viable way of looking at humans, still, in the 21st century? Surely all this rests on there being one absolute, unified ego, which is responsible for every sphere of my behaviour etc etc etc, something which I just cant buy into.

silverharp

Joycey wrote: »

A belief has been building up for a while now in me that humans are not "rational" in the way the majority of philosophers of action, or even philosophers of pre-20th century in general tend to portray us as.

I understand completely the point the article makes about the distinction between irrational and rational action being pretty much meaningless, as far as Im concerned every action is as irrational as it is rational, there is no "objective", and hence entirely rationally motivated way to preference one goal, or end, over another.

I am not the best person to debate this with you as its not an area I've explored in any detail. I am more nut and bolts , my simple look at all this is would there be more and better healthcare, travel etc.... under a free market then a socialistic model or is a particular system sustainable or not.

Joycey wrote: »

The question really comes down to: why would we expect the markets to find "equilibrium", or to act in a way which we perceive as "rational", if the individual actors which constitute it show no analgous trait? If it is determined that there is not adequate justification for letting the markets do their own thing then this would surely be an absolute refutation of Austrian school economics as it is usually conceived? Im not saying we should throw it out entirely, because most influential schools of thought, such as Marxism, have some great ideas, but to still maintain belief in the validity of a school of economics 100 years after its conception and in the face of contradictory evidence about human behaviour seems to me to be madness.

One of the basic premises of the Austrians is that resources cant be centrally managed, the market if left to its own devices will manage how many houses should be built , how many car factories there should be etc. You only have to look at the history of GM in the US to figure out that car production should not have anything to do with gov. policy.
its as simple as, if they can't or dont set the price of movie tickets they shouldnt be setting interest rates, money supply, inflation targeting.

Joycey

silverharp wrote: »

I am not the best person to debate this with you as its not an area I've explored in any detail. I am more nut and bolts

Thanks for replying anyway.

My simple look at all this is would there be more and better healthcare, travel etc.... under a free market then a socialistic model or is a particular system sustainable or not.

But you see you cant just look at certain benefits which accord from one system without appreciating that there may be certain negatives which offset or outweigh them.

For example, discussion about the increased "efficiency" which may come about as a result of the adoption of this model is irrelevant if the increased number and quality of, say, cars, comes at a cost to human quality of life. I, for one, dont measure quality of life in terms of the amount of stuff someone has, so while GDP or whatever can be a useful indicator, I completely reject the notion that this should be the final deciding factor in our decision of how to run society.

Edit: and theres no way youl convince me that healthcare will be better if people have to pay for it. Sure, the people who can afford it will probably get a better service but id rather see everybody get the same, slightly less good care then see the rich people get quality care while the poor get sh1te care or none at all.

And your concern about our society being run in a manner which is sustainable at least over the medium term (which it currently isnt), actually makes extremely relevant concerns over whether humans/markets are capable of organising society in such a way. The experiments which I was talking about having read about were, more often then not, casting doubt on exactly this capacity of markets (which are human controlled) in their current state being able to operate in a sustainable manner. While I think (someone correct me if im wrong please) that the Austrian school want to get rid of the necessity for exponential growth which is currently propelling us towards our end, I have no faith that markets being allowed to operate naturally will lead us to some kind of "equilibrium", an outdated, early 20th century idea shown to be absurd by the discovery and elaboration of chaos theory.

One of the basic premises of the Austrians is that resources cant be centrally managed, the market if left to its own devices will manage how many houses should be built , how many car factories there should be etc. You only have to look at the history of GM in the US to figure out that car production should not have anything to do with gov. policy.
its as simple as, if they can't or dont set the price of movie tickets they shouldnt be setting interest rates, money supply, inflation targeting.

Perhaps it is the case that given the predominant meaning of the word "efficiency", whereby only certain (relatively unimportant in my view) elements of a societies overall wellbeing are taken into account, that "resources cant be centrally managed" without some loss of maximal material productive capacity. However, as I already mentioned, I dont consider producing a lot of stuff to offset preventable harm caused to human beings in the process.

silverharp

Joycey wrote: »

While I think (someone correct me if im wrong please) that the Austrian school want to get rid of the necessity for exponential growth which is currently propelling us towards our end, I have no faith that markets being allowed to operate naturally will lead us to some kind of "equilibrium", an outdated, early 20th century idea shown to be absurd by the discovery and elaboration of chaos theory.

They probably dont put in in those terms. The Austrian idea is ideally a savings based system not a debt based system, but in practice unsustainable growth would be less likey to develop. I'd say chaos theory is more of an issue for managed markets then free markets. A savings based society would have a simple financial system compared to the current one, there would be no currency markets or bond markets to speak of. Systematic risk would not be an issue.

Re some of your other points, I see no special position for the larger medical sector, its just a collection of labour & capital. There is every reason to believe that there would be more people treated under a free market system then the current system. Booking a car in for a service is no different then a hip replacement? Even people who live on the minimum wage pay alot of tax , which could easily be diverted into a private health scheme, beyond that if one rates heathcare above a sky sports subscription then our "rational" punter will orgainise his finances accordingly.