Socialism (Moved from Grapes of Wrath)

@Mr Fight the Power,

Mr. Fight the Power;95660 wrote:

Nope, sorry. I don't remember that. I rarely remember what I'm saying or arguing from day to day.

I am flattered though.

I found it. I found it! :muscle:

Mr. Fight the Power;61733 wrote:

Variation is a cost and reward of freedom.

I think it beautifully expresses whats wrong with concepts that try to equate opportunity and outcome.

1 Reply

@EmperorNero,

What was I responding to?

0 Replies

@EmperorNero,

You can go to the post through the quote. The topic was whether a worker is exploited by the capitalist if he receives less in pay than the value his work creates. Which is the conventional wisdom. You were saying - now in my own words - that it's impossible to say what value a worker creates so it's not possible to say what pay he 'deserves'.
For example a beer will cost a fraction in a super market of what it costs in a club. So what value did the worker in the brewery create? The value of goods is 'created' from supply and demand. Thus it's not possible to say that the worker is exploited by the capitalist.

Now that I looked at the post, that wasn't what that very quote was about. It ties into it. 'Variation is a cost and reward of freedom' means that in a free market, one that is not controlled from above, there is no reason to assume that outcome will go along expected statistical lines. Because people are different. One guy comes in and is happy to get a job. The next guy, just because he is a more aggressive personality, bargains at the job interview and gets a higher pay. They may have the same education and do the same work, is the first guy exploited because he receives less pay for equal work? No, that's the variation of the free market. The reason I like the quote is that it is an answer to catch-phrases like 'equal pay for equal work'. In fact I believe that inequality in pay for equal work (which is a sketchy concept) is a sign of a free market! But I am a dilettante on the topic at best.

In a related thought, which is something that is just on my mind at the moment. If we break up the population along arbitrary lines. Like for example on race or gender. Then finding disproportional outcome is not necessarily caused by what we chose to break the groups up into. That may just be a statistical variation. As we would find if we broke up the groups along some other criteria. But for some reason when we find that groups that are perceived as 'victim classes' have an disproportional outcome, this variation is suddenly proof of unequal treatment of these groups and the horrific failure of the free market system. If women make less they must be discriminated against. If African Americans are disproportionately poor it must be because of racism. We seem to extrapolate from outcome to opportunity. This claim of discrimination may have a basis in reality, but assuming opportunity from outcome is as Marxist as it gets. You just can't say that two people should make the same and if they don't it's proof of unequal opportunity. You can't judge opportunity by outcome, because in a free market there is variation.
Essentially, asking the question whether people are discriminated against along some line as race makes it a self-fulfilling prophecy. Because we chose to break up the statistic along those lines and find variation.

1 Reply

@EmperorNero,

EmperorNero;97476 wrote:

Now that I looked at the post, that wasn't what that very quote was about. It ties into it. 'Variation is a cost and reward of freedom' means that in a free market, one that is not controlled from above, there is no reason to assume that outcome will go along expected statistical lines. Because people are different. One guy comes in and is happy to get a job. The next guy, just because he is a more aggressive personality, bargains at the job interview and gets a higher pay. They may have the same education and do the same work, is the first guy exploited because he receives less pay for equal work? No, that's the variation of the free market. The reason I like the quote is that it is an answer to catch-phrases like 'equal pay for equal work'. In fact I believe that inequality in pay for equal work (which is a sketchy concept) is a sign of a free market! But I am a dilettante on the topic at best.

Yep.

It all comes down to the concept of subjective value. Many people attack the free market because it allows inequality. But ultimately this equality is due to the fact that people simply view things differently. It may not seem fair to you that you make less than someone in a very similar position, and while there may be discriminatory practices that are truly despicable. However, that same process that results in what you perceive as unfair also results in your ability to pursue the subjective values and goals that make you who you are and allow for your own personal actualization and satisfaction.

Don't tell anyone, but on another forum:

NationStates • View topic - Equal Work means Equal Pay?

Quote:

In a related thought, which is something that is just on my mind at the moment. If we break up the population along arbitrary lines. Like for example on race or gender. Then finding disproportional outcome is not necessarily caused by what we chose to break the groups up into. That may just be a statistical variation. As we would find if we broke up the groups along some other criteria. But for some reason when we find that groups that are perceived as 'victim classes' have an disproportional outcome, this variation is suddenly proof of unequal treatment of these groups and the horrific failure of the free market system. If women make less they must be discriminated against. If African Americans are disproportionately poor it must be because of racism. We seem to extrapolate from outcome to opportunity. This claim of discrimination may have a basis in reality, but assuming opportunity from outcome is as Marxist as it gets. You just can't say that two people should make the same and if they don't it's proof of unequal opportunity. You can't judge opportunity by outcome, because in a free market there is variation.
Essentially, asking the question whether people are discriminated against along some line as race makes it a self-fulfilling prophecy. Because we chose to break up the statistic along those lines and find variation.

Trends may be ignored on the individual level, but in large groups they will be shown. Appropriate statistical sampling should do away with random variation. In other words, while two people may have different incomes and not be the victims (or beneficiaries) of discrimination, taking whole groups would discrimination.

But is important to draw the line between failure in the market and failure in society at large. As you know, the market represents those subjective values of people, and if we do see the market creating different outcomes for different groups along certain lines, we should appropriately recognize this as a social problem, not particularly an economic problem.

As a side note, many libertarian economists have run into major controversy by attempting to relate market differences to inherent differences in different groups. Mainly along race and gender differences.

Look up Walter Block and Hans Hermann Hoppe. I am inclined to think Hoppe is more of a prick, but I have been the member of a forum that Walter Block frequented, and would vouch for him being an extremely fair-minded individual.

1 Reply

@EmperorNero,

So I did read the rest of Grapes of Wrath.
And, holy cow, it's a commercial for communism.
The rich become richer, while the poor cant feed themselves. That's portrayed as the fault of the free market and not, say, the technological shift in that time and the markets not really being free.
The government program camp works, the administration is pretty much communism, and it works!
The only problem is the crazy Christian, who makes stuff up to scare people. And the evil capitalists who want to end this good government program.

All in all, I find it kind of scary that this is read in schools.

1 Reply

@EmperorNero,

EmperorNero;105558 wrote:

So I did read the rest of Grapes of Wrath.
And, holy cow, it's a commercial for communism.
The rich become richer, while the poor cant feed themselves. That's portrayed as the fault of the free market and not, say, the technological shift in that time and the markets not really being free.
The government program camp works, the administration is pretty much communism, and it works!
The only problem is the crazy Christian, who makes stuff up to scare people. And the evil capitalists who want to end this good government program.

All in all, I find it kind of scary that this is read in schools.

Good! I'm glad you read it; and yea, I could see how you'd see it as a commercial for communism (although to make a political interpretation; I think it more condemns systems which encourage economic disparity than advocate anything in particular). And yes, I can also see the basis for your interpretation with regards to the success of the relief camps.

I still really liked it; and if I could offer a suggestion in how it's viewed: Try to look at it as revealing a human side of suffering without any single "villain". The events in the book were as attributable to the dust bowl and drought as they were on the great depression. And although a political agenda could be implicated in referencing the depression itself (I suppose), the weather and farming practices, as a contributing cause, probably doesn't have much to do with communism.

In any case, I'm glad you read it - this thread's been going on forever.

Thanks

0 Replies

@Mr Fight the Power,

Mr. Fight the Power;97867 wrote:

Trends may be ignored on the individual level, but in large groups they will be shown. Appropriate statistical sampling should do away with random variation. In other words, while two people may have different incomes and not be the victims (or beneficiaries) of discrimination, taking whole groups would discrimination.

Hi.
Sorry for ate response. I have this one point. Maybe I'll respond later to the first part of the post.

Even with a sufficiently large statistical sampling you can't ever correct for all the factors that explain disproportionality, in order to conclude that the remaining disproportionality is caused by "discrimination".
When we compare black and white incomes, that are oversimplified statistical groups. Whites are on average older than blacks and people tend to earn more with age. So it would be a good idea to correct for age, to not be comparing apples and oranges. I.e. we are simplifying our statistical groups a little less.
It would also be a good idea to correct for hours worked and education level. (Btw. blacks and whites of the same age and education level have very small differences in income.)
Do we now have comparable groups? How about the preference that blacks to a larger part want to be NBA players. Should we expect a group that has different priorities to achieve the same as, say, office clerks as everyone for whom being an office clerk is a higher priority?
What if blue-eyed people for some reason like chemistry. Does the fact that a high rate of blue-eyed people are accepted to study chemistry mean colleges are racist against non blue-eyed people? Are we to decide that people who like a subject, and those who are less eager to succeed in it, should have the same success in it?
The point I'm making is that you can't ever correct for every human difference. Without simplifying we'd have as many statistical groups as people. So whatever disproportional outcome is found is merely an artifact of the way we chose to simplify the statistical groups. "Racism" and "discrimination" simply can't be measured.

1 Reply

@EmperorNero,

Dissolving known racism in a weak solution of irrelevant contrasts and blinkered ignorance will not weaken the view that Blacks have historically been disadvantaged.

1 Reply

@xris,

xris;130253 wrote:

Dissolving known racism in a weak solution of irrelevant contrasts and blinkered ignorance will not weaken the view that Blacks have historically been disadvantaged.

Yes, particularly in Africa. By blacks.

1 Reply

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;130255 wrote:

Yes, particularly in Africa. By blacks.

WOT are you on about now? whites have penalised whites in europe how relevant is this bizarre statement.

0 Replies

@EmperorNero,

I am amazed at the visceral response that the mere mention of socialism triggers in so many Americans. Curiously enough for many their understanding of socialism and communism is remarkably shallow and imperfectly informed. To an outsider this reaction to perceived but non-existant dangers can appear to be a mass psychosis. It seems that a great many Americans have been indoctrinated to have a tax fetish, to believe that the greatest threat to their way of life is taxation and government interference in their economy.

To these people I heartily recommend "The Spirit Level" by Richard Wilkinson and Kate Picket, two prominent British epidemiologists. The authors focus on the First World nations, the industrialized democracies of Europe, North America and Asia. They also examine the United States on a state by state basis.

The authors focus on income inequality among these nations and states. Among the nations explored the least inequal are Japan followed by Finland, Norway, Sweden and Denmark. The most inequal are led by the United States followed by Portugal, Britain, New Zealand and Australia. On an American basis, the most inequality of wealth is found in New York, followed by Louisiana, Alabama, Connecticut, Mississippi, Texas and West Virginia while the lowest inequality is in Utah, followed by Wisconsin, New Hampshire, Idaho, Vermont.

Having established these baseline parameters of relative income inequality the authors delve into 50-years of statistical data and research from which they extensively chart the relative performance of these nations and these states on various criteria. These include community life and social relations, mental health and drug use, physical health and life expectancy, obesity, educational performance, teen births, violence (particularly homicide), imprisonment and punishment and social mobility.

I probably shouldn't have to say it but I will. In each of these criteria, the lower the income inequality the better the performance. The authors go on to demonstrate how corrosive to society income inequality proves to be, over and over again.

Wilkinson-Pickett aren't using their own data but mainly that of governments and government agencies amassed over half a century. It's a trade-off. Reducing income inequality produces a healthier, happier, stronger and more productive society. Allowing the gap between rich and poor to burgeon undermines society. What's particularly interesting in this research is that it demonstrates how wealth inequality actually impacts the rich almost as much as it does the poor. Everybody loses.

A good follow-on book to the "Spirit Level" is Chris Hedges' "The Empire of Illusion, the End of Literacy and the Triumph of Spectacle." Hedges argues that a transformation occurred in his countrymen about three decades ago when America switched from being a culture of production to a culture of consumption. With this shift he maintains that illusion came to supplant reality, form routinely trumped substance. The following is taken from the back cover:

"The more we sever ourselves from a literate, print-based world - a world of complexity and nuance, a world of ideas - for one informed by comforting, reassuring images, fantasies, slogans and a celebration of violence, the more we implode. We ask, like the wrestling fans or those who confuse love with pornography, to be fed lies. We demand lies. The skilfully manufactured images and slogans that flood the airwaves and infect our political discourse mask reality. And we do not protest.

The lonely Cassandras who speak the truth about our misguided imperial wars, the global economic meltdown, and the imminent danger of multiple pollutions that are destroying the ecosystem that sustains the human species are drowned out by arenas full of fans chanting, "Slut! Slut! Slut!" or television audiences chanting "Jer-ry! Jer-ry! Jer-ry!" The worse reality becomes, the less a beleaguered population wants to hear about it and the more it distracts itself with squalid pseudo-events of celebrity breakdowns, gossip and trivia. These are the debauched revels of a dying culture."

"Empire," like "The Spirit Level" are genuine wake-up calls to societies in trouble. We're going into what promises to be the most challenging century in mankind's history and if we're going to get through this as well as possible, we're absolutely going to need societies that are cohesive and strong. This will require reversing a lot of attitudes formed from the broth of the decades of illusion we've been going through.

1 Reply

@RDRDRD1,

RDRDRD1;130297 wrote:

I am amazed at the visceral response that the mere mention of socialism triggers in so many Americans. Curiously enough for many their understanding of socialism and communism is remarkably shallow and imperfectly informed. To an outsider this reaction to perceived but non-existant dangers can appear to be a mass psychosis. It seems that a great many Americans have been indoctrinated to have a tax fetish, to believe that the greatest threat to their way of life is taxation and government interference in their economy.

Ahhhh! You said "socialism". Make it stop! Make it stop! *head explodes*

But seriously, here you are attacking everyone that shares a view you disagree with as "shallow and imperfectly informed" without offering any specifics.
May I ask what parts of socialism Americans are mistaken about?

I can point out actual specifics, for the claim that socialists don't really know what socialism means. I'm pretty sure a higher share of American "right-wingers" knows what socialism is defined as and what it directly implies than of self-declared European socialists. So the "haters" know better what they hate than the supporters. Which is quite an astounding thought, actually.

RDRDRD1;130297 wrote:

I probably shouldn't have to say it but I will. In each of these criteria, the lower the income inequality the better the performance. The authors go on to demonstrate how corrosive to society income inequality proves to be, over and over again.

Wilkinson-Pickett aren't using their own data but mainly that of governments and government agencies amassed over half a century. It's a trade-off. Reducing income inequality produces a healthier, happier, stronger and more productive society.

This is one of those cases where the left mistakes correlation and causation. Sure, income inequality (i.e. everybody not receiving the same amount of income; how horrible, herr Marx) correlates with health and performance and such parameters. That doesn't mean making income more equal per person will lead to better health and performance. Rather, cozy places with a high standard of living have people with better health and such. And people with a high standard of living and no other problems tend to support wealth redistribution. So the socialism is not a causation, it's actually a consequence.

And that's not even taking into account that making income more equal per person (as opposed to equal per value created) requires some mechanism that has to be oppressive and distorts economic achievement.

RDRDRD1;130297 wrote:

Allowing the gap between rich and poor to burgeon undermines society. What's particularly interesting in this research is that it demonstrates how wealth inequality actually impacts the rich almost as much as it does the poor. Everybody loses.

I'm tired about "the gap between the rich and poor" talk.
First, there is no "gap". There is a incremental transition between income groups.
Second, "the poor" are defined as a statistical number. They are not all truly suffering. A large part of "the poor" have items that were considered luxuries only a generation ago. That we don't all earn the same amount of money is not a bad thing.
Third, "the poor" are not some enduring group. If you look at individuals instead of statistical groups, every study in the last 30 years found that "the rich" are losing money, and the poor are gaining in income.
But if you only look at statistical groups, then you'd find that "the rich are getting richer" and "the poor are getting poorer". Which really means that people can become rich and leave poverty. I thought that is a good thing, but it is spun as a bad thing. Which is pure communist propaganda. (That's what's called cultural Marxism.)
It makes me sick that educated people believe that crap. What would be the alternative? If "the poor" as a statistical group were gaining in income, that would mean that society gets poorer. Would that make you happier?

RDRDRD1;130297 wrote:

"Empire," like "The Spirit Level" are genuine wake-up calls to societies in trouble. We're going into what promises to be the most challenging century in mankind's history and if we're going to get through this as well as possible, we're absolutely going to need societies that are cohesive and strong. This will require reversing a lot of attitudes formed from the broth of the decades of illusion we've been going through.

We're not in trouble by any standard. We live longer, are healthier, crime is lower, we are richer, smarter, larger, more educated, have a cleaner environment, there are fewer wars and diseases. We're going into what promises to be the most easy century in mankind's history.
All we really have to do is not letting all that ease get into our heads. People who live in material comfort and therefore have no real problems to worry about tend to find things to worry about. People seem to feel, that when we are not in crisis, somehow life is not worth living. We constantly need to scare ourselves with new doomsday scenarios. (The clearest example are the ever-fluctuating, laughable prognoses of global warming and cooling over the last century. I think they changed their mind four times, and counting.)
The easier life gets, the more we are looking for "planning" and "control". In other words, the richer we are, the more socialist we become. That's why in the US the coasts are the bastions of socialism, and in Europe Scandinavia is socialist. Because wealthy places tend to be socialist, we make the simple calculation that socialism caused it, when it's really the other way around. And socialism causes poverty.

So all we really have to fear in this century is fear. The planners obviously want to convince us that we need them; so they have to criticize. They have to convince us we are going to run out of oil, and resources, and there is overpopulation, and AIDS, and global warming. All these (made up) problems for which we need their control to save us. They are like those Iranian twelvers, who think if they only bring enough destruction to the world, their messiah - the 12th Imam - will return. These people believe that the more they destroy society, the sooner it will lead to the workers paradise.

1 Reply

@EmperorNero,

It speaks volumes, Nero, that you're so ready to dismiss a 270-page work that you haven't even read and never will. Yes I believe the United States of America is better than ever in all respects and will simply continue to get better and better throughout this century. What a load of bollocks!

1 Reply

@EmperorNero,

Your living a narrow view of what socialism really means. Your intentions are not to see the moderation or the need to find a middle path. You want us socialists to be the nasty little reds hiding under your cosy little beds ready to strike you dead. You see success breading success and those of the lower order should stay there, otherwise your privileged position will be oh so much less than it aught. Tell me in world where every one has achieved the same , should we have equal benefits? Would your world be a happy one?

0 Replies

@RDRDRD1,

RDRDRD1;130338 wrote:

It speaks volumes, Nero, that you're so ready to dismiss a 270-page work that you haven't even read and never will. Yes I believe the United States of America is better than ever in all respects and will simply continue to get better and better throughout this century. What a load of bollocks!

People write 270-page books about how George Bush and the queen of England are lizard people and did 9/11. That it's in a book doesn't give your claims any credit. I see your claims, and I respond to them as they stand.
So what does it "speak" of me, that I dismiss some idea you like?
What speaks, however, seems to be that you don't feel like to need to explain any of your claims. Americans who disagree with you are stupid, just like that, no explanation. It's after all common sense that Americans are stupid.
Can you logically or empirically attack anything I said?

1 Reply

@EmperorNero,

EmperorNero;130342 wrote:

People write 270-page books about how George Bush and the queen of England are lizard people and did 9/11. That it's in a book doesn't give your claims any credit. I see your claims, and I respond to them as they stand.
So what does it "speak" of me, that I dismiss some idea you like?
What speaks, however, seems to be that you don't feel like to need to explain any of your claims. Americans who disagree with you are stupid, just like that, no explanation. It's after all common sense that Americans are stupid.
Can you logically or empirically attack anything I said?

Nero you dont confront issues or debate, you give damned rhetoric speeches.

1 Reply

@xris,

xris;130343 wrote:

Nero you dont confront issues or debate, you give damned rhetoric speeches.

I don't understand the difference. How do you want me to debate?

You were just lecturing me on the nuances of socialism.

1 Reply

@EmperorNero,

Nero, you're an utter bore. Thanks for reminding me why I left this site months ago. Who knows, I might be back in a couple of months. Perhaps by then you can explain how your in all respects superior United States comes dead last (by wide margins) on social ills including violent crime, teen pregnancy, obesity, physical health and life expectancy, mental illness and rates of imprisonment. Funny though I think you are first in debt (federal, state, corporate and individual). Must be the blessings of that market economy, eh? Nero, you're a total giggle. Adios!

2 Replies

@RDRDRD1,

RDRDRD1;130348 wrote:

Nero, you're an utter bore. Thanks for reminding me why I left this site months ago. Who knows, I might be back in a couple of months. Perhaps by then you can explain how your in all respects superior United States comes dead last (by wide margins) on social ills including violent crime, teen pregnancy, obesity, physical health and life expectancy, mental illness and rates of imprisonment. Funny though I think you are first in debt (federal, state, corporate and individual). Must be the blessings of that market economy, eh? Nero, you're a total giggle. Adios!

Running off, I see. That's ok. It's hard to admit to being wrong. If you could reply to my posts, you would. But you running off tells me that I dealt you a blow. Not that's it's about 'winning' for me, I want to educate socialists. Or rather I want to see what it takes to de-program them. Maybe in a quiet hour you be able to accept that you were mistaken for so long.

Edit: no reason for the hostility. We can have a nice chat. Just pick any part of what I posted and make and argument against it.

0 Replies

@EmperorNero,

EmperorNero;130346 wrote:

I don't understand the difference. How do you want me to debate?

You were just lecturing me on the nuances of socialism.

You request definitions to nit pick and then preach about the benefits of a capitalist state, a state in your opinion that has never existed. You really should work for Disney land, where the real world is hidden by twenty foot high fences and your Utopian state is forever promised for those who can afford the entrance fee.

1 Reply

Socialism (Moved from Grapes of Wrath)

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know