Capitalism and Socialism: The Good, The Bad and The Ugly

[Pierre]

The other choice begins with some form of 'universal basic income' (UBI), providing a buffer zone within which those 'market-redundant' workers can retool/reeducate/reorient themselves for finding their niche and effectively creating or tapping into new markets. That's basically the choice that is already being applied, ad hoc, via myriad welfare programs. Yang is saying: we're already halfway doing it; let's stop pretending otherwise and go the whole hog.

Universal basic income is applied for decades. For example it started in France in 1988 (Minimal Insertion Revenue). It was not created to help individuals 'adapt to new markets' i.e. become a waitress, but to calm the masses and prevent them to rebel (you don't bite the hand that feeds you).

It is the same fascists (collusion of governments and big companies) that relocated large production facilities in cheap labor countries (profit maximization) and that started the UBI.

Wouldn't it be better to stop relocating corporations and stop this UBI non sense? Wouldn't a father (industries mostly employ men) be better off, socially and symbolically, if he worked an honest job instead of begging for an universal income (enough to survive, not enough to live decently) from the very same elite that destroyed his job in the first place?

The irony is that those universal incomes are funded mostly by an increased taxation (not on large corporations but on blue collars, middle classes and small companies) and an increase in national debts.

So the real culprits (big corporations, banks and politicians) don't fund the income that they made necessary but, in addition they directly benefit from it:

• banks through the increase in national debt
• politicians through the appeasement of the masses
• large corporations through the relocation

 

[Beau]

My issue with UBI is that those who depend on it, especially if jobs are scarce, will think twice before biting the hand that feeds them. Who would question/criticize the government when their income can be taken away at a moment's notice? I'm sure the government will have a list of people exempted from UBI - certain crimes, accusation/suspicion of terrorism/inciting panic, and other potentially trumped-up charges. Imagine peacefully protesting, and an agent provocateur throwing a bottle at police resulting in crowd suppression techniques, and face-id cameras etc identify you as being part of a violent mob. Boom, there goes your livelihood - who would protest then?

Couldn't you say the same thing about people on Social Security right now? And if so, there doesn't seem to a situation like the above existing at the moment.

 

[Scottie]

An industrious individual or family business can indeed start out simply 'selling to fellow Americans on the free market', but soon discovers a glass ceiling beyond which you need to mine for 'the real big bucks': exclusive deals for filling out government orders.

In the case of internet companies, those "government orders" are usually in the form of surveillance/private data, and they ain't sellin' it directly for money.

Past a certain point, the only reason you become big and successful is because you cave to some aspect of "the government" in one way or another.

Free Market Capitalism at its best! Oh, and BTW, those evil darn Chinese are commies!

 

[Laura]

Couldn't you say the same thing about people on Social Security right now? And if so, there doesn't seem to a situation like the above existing at the moment.

The thing about SS is that the person who receives it, has PAID into the fund their entire working life. They aren't getting something for nothing.

 

[luc]

And it's interesting that that same ethos that fuels American capitalism has spilled over into identity politics and SJWs: all rights, no responsibilities being the core of their worldview. So rampant capitalism produced radical lefty identity politics and SJWs, the very thing the SJWs claim to be fighting against. It's a strange world.

Yeah, and the parallels between capitalism vs. communism/SJWism and Darwinism vs. Postmodernism are really striking. In the case of Darwinism, the same dynamic seems to play out: Postmodernists (/Neo-Marxists) absolutely hate Darwinian thinking and everything biological in general, and fight it tooth and nails, and yet they not only blindly accept mindless evolution, but are pretty Darwinian themselves with their "it's all groups playing power games" shtick. Isn't it weird! I guess SJWs, Darwinists, Marxists and Capitalists all share a similar pathological view of human nature and therefore are closer to each other than they think.

Wouldn't it be better to stop relocating corporations and stop this UBI non sense? Wouldn't a father (industries mostly employ men) be better off, socially and symbolically, if he worked an honest job instead of begging for an universal income (enough to survive, not enough to live decently) from the very same elite that destroyed his job in the first place?

I feel the same about UBI - it's one thing to help people if they lose their jobs and the like, but the whole UBI mindset kind of irks me. First, I for one would have been lost had there been UBI. The fact that I was forced to take a job really saved me. Sometimes you need this existential pressure to get out of your idiocy!

And Pierre is right, it's good for the soul to work, it's crucial. I suspect that many of the UBI proponents secretely hope they can then just "do what they like", "pursue their dreams" instead of "doing a boring job" and such nonsense (I used to be like that - not a good path!).

But I recognize that there are some good arguments for it as well.

If you think the UBI scenario through, there are kind of two extreme cases. This is a caricature, but perhaps points to something interesting: one case would be a Brave New World type scenario where everyone has all their needs met. They are served consumer goods by Amazon's drones or what have you, can watch porn the whole day etc., nobody needs to get out of their comfort zone ever. This would be the ultimate STS farm. The school would be destroyed in a sense with everyone "asleep in matter".

In another, more STOish world, all basic needs could be covered as well: nobody has to slave away in a corporation, you are provided for, no existential angst etc. But it would be totally different: people would work hard, voluntarily leave their comfort zones to learn and grow, everybody would do the right thing and flourish because it's both the only and the best option for the STO mindset. The lessons you can learn from existential pressure and having to work jobs simply have been learned and aren't necessary anymore.

Perhaps the fact that such ideas as UBI come up could be a reflection of a reality split of some sort? Both principles, STS and STO, seem to be active and interacting in many ways, and what's happening in the Western world with automation, loss of jobs and all the crazy changes such things entail could be seen as a "rearranging of the class room"? Or perhaps the whole West just collapses before all that manifests...

 

[Joe]

I guess SJWs, Darwinists, Marxists and Capitalists all share a similar pathological view of human nature and therefore are closer to each other than they think.

It's very strange, but can be explained, as you say, by a shared fundamental world view. That fundamentally materialistic world view can be obscured to some extent by apparently diverging political stances, but look below the surface, scratch it a little, and you find rampant materialism. It's a pretty dangerous because otherwise 'soulful' individuals can be bamboozled by appeals to noble-sounding ideals like 'equality' or 'humanitarianism' or 'diversity' that hide a worship of temporal power.

 

[Approaching Infinity]

It's very strange, but can be explained, as you say, by a shared fundamental world view. That fundamentally materialistic world view can be obscured to some extent by apparently diverging political stances, but look below the surface, scratch it a little, and you find rampant materialism. It's a pretty dangerous because otherwise 'soulful' individuals can be bamboozled by appeals to noble-sounding ideals like 'equality' or 'humanitarianism' or 'diversity' that hide a worship of temporal power.

WhoWhatWhy did a short podcast recently on socialism/capitalism. One of the main things the guest argued was that there's a distinction between a market economy and a market society, where market ideas permeate everything.

Socialism vs. Capitalism… We’re Having the Wrong Debate - WhoWhatWhy

A look at how the excesses of capitalism have taken over everything from the lines at Disneyland to the carpool lane of your daily commute.

whowhatwhy.org

I like that way of looking at things. Ancient Mesopotamia, China, India, and the Islamic Middle East all had market or 'protomarket' economies - but they didn't have market societies. Economic activity was still placed within a wider worldview - a worldview which is lacking in a culture like the U.S. it seems. So in the absence of higher values, economic theories can take their place.

 

[ScioAgapeOmnis]

The thing about SS is that the person who receives it, has PAID into the fund their entire working life. They aren't getting something for nothing.

Also, I'd think older people have "less to lose", they've lived their life, they're probably more difficult to both brainwash and intimidate (I could be off on that). They also spent their life developing discipline and working to develop self-esteem, offer value to society, and support themselves and their families. They paid their dues. Young people being brought up in a workless environment on UBI wouldn't really get a chance for the self-development and confidence benefits that only come from being useful to society and yourself, and generally just doing something you don't want, as well as getting really good at a skill, etc. I think the population would feel worthless and lost in many ways then, and without some alternative opportunities and strong encouragement by society to serve a useful function to others, I dunno, it sounds like a recipe for depression. Hell, even many people who are retired start aging quickly and develop senility etc because they end up doing nothing much with the rest of their lives - retirement, for some, is a death before death even now.

I think the afterlife thread is illuminating in this regard, as one common thread is that even without any kind of demand or survival need, people commit themselves to service and work hard. The question is - is humanity in a place where such a thing is likely to happen? Given the societal, moral, value-based, and psychological decay in many ways, and the pathological promotion of it, I tend to doubt it. Or maybe society will split at that point and some will thrive while others will quickly deteriorate on many levels? People who feel useless, weak, and dependent are easier to control. Who will have the willpower and the higher drive to thrive and grow, and who will succumb to lethargy, depression, drugs, and parties etc? I guess we'll see how it pans out! One thing is for sure - materialists of all sorts won't do well when all material stuff is automated and a computer can do all physical things better. Without a higher purpose, higher love, and a drive to develop the soul I would expect a lot of problems.

 

[luc]

The thing about SS is that the person who receives it, has PAID into the fund their entire working life. They aren't getting something for nothing.

There are different names and so on in different countries, but most welfare states have 2 distinct things going on:

a) an insurance-type support - for example in Germany, if you lose your job, depending on how long you have worked you are entitled to 3-12 months continuation of payment from the government (at 80% your salary I believe). The idea is that if people payed into the system long enough, they should get the benefits.

b) some sort of support for the "hopeless" cases - the bottom of society, where people simply cannot find jobs, often because they are in such a dismal state of a downward-spiral (alcoholism/drug abuse, single-moms with 4 children and new partners coming and going, criminality etc.). As Pierre said, this is basically a "bribe them to keep them at bay" kind of thing, combined with the notion that you can't just let people starve to death or live in slums.

But there are tons of problems with such systems that often have to do with fundamental misconceptions about human nature IMO. For example, as I quoted earlier, monetary incentives are often useless. Also, punishments (such as reducing payments for peeps in the b) scenario if they don't comply) seldom work and tend to hurt the "honest". Same for rules such as that you can't have savings in that situation, and here the system even scans your relatives - if they have too much money, you don't get support etc. It just messes everything up because it's so staggeringly naive psychologically, ignores the "criminal mind", ignores people's drives and motivations, how different people are etc.

Designing a halfway decent, or at least not catastrophic welfare system is extremely delicate and would need to take into account a whole lot of detailed knowledge and wisdom. Neither the capitalist nor the socialist mindset can really help, because both are only about money, payoffs, material resources and the like, and simplistic blanket-solutions based on it, IMO.

 

[goyacobol]

Designing a halfway decent, or at least not catastrophic welfare system is extremely delicate and would need to take into account a whole lot of detailed knowledge and wisdom. Neither the capitalist nor the socialist mindset can really help, because both are only about money, payoffs, material resources and the like, and simplistic blanket-solutions based on it, IMO.

I think that says a lot luc. I am a retired state employee living mostly on SS. It seems like the government through congress has forever used SS funds for whatever was convenient. My earnings even back to being a janitor in a laundromat while in high school have paid into that fund.

It is no small task to design a system where people base their sense of fairness on "There's no free lunch". I worked for the PA Dept. of Public Welfare. I have much sympathy for those you described as being in an endless cycle of poverty. If we were able to create a more localized form of welfare I think that would be better but how do you really do that knowing it is dependent on the moral/ethical beliefs of the individuals even at a local level?

As we are seeing the effects of materialism/Dawwinism/etc. have worked hand in hand with the goals of psychopathy. Most of us see it's apex as being 4D STS. So even if we can envision better ways of living we are first confronted with the results of the ponerization of practically all the control systems of the planet. It has infected governments, religions, education and science.

As much as we want to create a better world I think we need to work at it by focusing on education about psychopathy in a major way.

Session 29 December 2009:

Q: (L) Yes... Okay, well, the thing that occurs to me as I observe all of this insanity is that this drive for control results only in destruction. The destruction is of everything that one would think the psychopaths would... I mean, if you wA*** have power over something, what good does it do to have any power if everything's dead and there's nobody there to have power over? They're killing everything! They'll end up in total control of everything, but there'll be nothing there but ashes. It's just insane!

A: Psychopathy is characterized by a supreme lack of insight.

Q: (L) So in other words, when Lobaczewski said that it's like the germs in the body that do not realize that they will be burned in the ground with the corpse...

{Quote from Political Ponerology that is referenced above:

“The following questions thus suggest themselves: what happens if the network of understandings among psychopaths achieves power in leadership positions with international exposure? This can happen, especially during the later phases of the phenomenon. Goaded by their character, such people thirst for just that even though it would conflict with their own life interest... They do not understand that a catastrophe {will} ensue. Germs are not aware that they will be burned alive or buried deep in the ground along with the human body whose death they are causing.

“If such and many managerial positions are assumed by individuals deprived of sufficient abilities to feel and understand most other people, and who also betray deficiencies in technical imagination and practical skills—(faculties indispensable for governing economic and political matters) this must result in an exceptionally serious crisis in all areas, both within the country in question and with regard to international relations. Within, the situation shall become unbearable even for those citizens who were able to feather their nest into a relatively comfortable modus vivendi. Outside, other societies start to feel the pathological quality of the phenomenon quite distinctly. Such a state of affairs cannot last long.”}

A: Yes

Q: (L) And the unfortunate thing is that the masses of people do not realize that they are the body that is being killed by these germs, and they're really, REALLY, not waking up.

A: Don't lose hope for your groups. They will do well if they will follow the STO way set out for them.

 

[Approaching Infinity]

Capitalism/free-market leads intrinsically to monopolies. Actually, a lot of scholars defending capitalism have no problem with that. Indeed, if economy is dictated by the behavior of economic agents solely guided by self-interest and profit maximization, it is unavoidable that some agents will do "better" than others.

Could you give some examples, because based on my reading, this doesn't seem to be true. It seems to be truer to say that free-market capitalism can lead to one business having a large market share and the lowest prices temporarily, but as long as competition is legal, there will always be competitors, and the 'monopoly's' position isn't guaranteed. For example, this article gives multiple examples from U.S. history showing that what are often considered natural monopolies were nothing of the sort, until they were made so by the government:

The Myth of Natural Monopoly | Thomas J. DiLorenzo

The theory of natural monopoly is an economic fiction. No such thing as a "natural" monopoly has ever existed. The history of the so-called public utility concept is that the late 19th and early 20th century "utilities" competed vigorously and, like all other industries, they did not like...

mises.org

From the introduction:

At the time when the first government franchise monopolies were being granted, the large majority of economists understood that large-scale, capital-intensive production did not lead to monopoly, but was an absolutely desirable aspect of the competitive process.

The word "process" is important here. If competition is viewed as a dynamic, rivalrous process of entrepreneurship, then the fact that a single producer happens to have the lowest costs at any one point in time is of little or no consequence. The enduring forces of competition — including potential competition — will render free-market monopoly an impossibility.

The theory of natural monopoly is also ahistorical. There is no evidence of the "natural-monopoly" story ever having been carried out — of one producer achieving lower long-run average total costs than everyone else in the industry and thereby establishing a permanent monopoly. As discussed below, in many of the so-called public-utility industries of the late 18th and early 19th centuries, there were often literally dozens of competitors.

An example of an alleged natural monopoly:

Cable television is also a franchise monopoly in most cities because of the theory of natural monopoly. But the monopoly in this industry is anything but "natural." Like electricity, there are dozens of cities in the United States where there are competing cable firms. "Direct competition … currently occurs in at least three dozen jurisdictions nationally."47

The existence of longstanding competition in the cable industry gives the lie to the notion that that industry is a "natural monopoly" and is therefore in need of franchise monopoly regulation. The cause of monopoly in cable TV is government regulation, not economies of scale. Although cable operators complain of "duplication," it is important to keep in mind that "while over-building an existing cable system can lower the profitability of the incumbent operator, it unambiguously improves the position of consumers who face prices determined not by historical costs, but by the interplay of supply and demand."48

Also like the case of electric power, researchers have found that in those cities where there are competing cable companies prices are about 23 percent below those of monopolistic cable operators.49 Cablevision of Central Florida, for example, reduced its basic prices from $12.95 to $6.50 per month in "duopoly" areas in order to compete. When Telestat entered Riviera Beach, Florida, it offered 26 channels of basic service for $5.75, compared to Comcast's 12channel offering for $8.40 per month. Comcast responded by upgrading its service and dropping its prices.50 In Presque Isle, Maine, when the city government invited competition, the incumbent firm quickly upgraded its service from only 12 to 54 channels.51

In 1987 the Pacific West Cable Company sued the city of Sacramento, California on First Amendment grounds for blocking its entry into the cable market. A jury found that "the Sacramento cable market was not a natural monopoly and that the claim of natural monopoly was a sham used by defendants as a pretext for granting a single cable television franchise … to promote the making of cash payments and provision of 'in-kind' services … and to obtain increased campaign contribution."52 The city was forced to adopt a competitive cable policy, the result of which was that the incumbent cable operator, Scripps Howard, dropped its monthly price from $14.50 to $10 to meet a competitor's price. The company also offered free installation and three months free service in every area where it had competition.

Still, the big majority of cable systems in the U.S. are franchise monopolies for precisely the reasons stated by the Sacramento jury: they are mercantilistic schemes whereby a monopoly is created to the benefit of cable companies, who share the loot with the politicians through campaign contributions, free air time on "community service programming," contributions to local foundations favored by the politicians, stock equity and consulting contracts to the politically well connected, and various gifts to the franchise authorities.

In some cities, politicians collect these indirect bribes for five to ten years or longer from multiple companies before finally granting a franchise. They then benefit from part of the monopoly rents earned by the monopoly franchisee. As former FCC chief economist Thomas Hazlett, who is perhaps the nation's foremost authority on the economics of the cable TV industry, has concluded, "we may characterize the franchising process as nakedly inefficient from a welfare perspective, although it does produce benefits for municipal franchiser."53 The barrier to entry in the cable TV industry is not economies of scale, but the political price-fixing conspiracy that exists between local politicians and cable operators.

The conclusion:

The theory of natural monopoly is an economic fiction. No such thing as a "natural" monopoly has ever existed. The history of the so-called public utility concept is that the late 19th and early 20th century "utilities" competed vigorously and, like all other industries, they did not like competition. They first secured government-sanctioned monopolies, and then, with the help of a few influential economists, constructed an expost rationalization for their monopoly power.

This has to be one of the greatest corporate public relations coups of all time. "By a soothing process of rationalization," wrote Horace M. Gray more than 50 years ago, "men are able to oppose monopolies in general but to approve certain types of monopolies. … Since these monopolies were 'natural' and since nature is beneficent, it followed that they were 'good' monopolies. … Government was therefore justified in establishing 'good' monopolies."59

In industry after industry, the natural monopoly concept is finally eroding. Electric power, cable TV, telephone services, and the mail, are all on the verge of being deregulated, either legislatively or de facto, due to technological change. Introduced in the United States at about the same time communism was introduced to the former Soviet Union, franchise monopolies are about to become just as defunct. Like all monopolists, they will use every last resource to lobby to maintain their monopolistic privileges, but the potential gains to consumers of free markets are too great to justify them. The theory of natural monopoly is a 19th century economic fiction that defends 19th century (or 18th century, in the case of the US Postal Service) monopolistic privileges, and has no useful place in the 21st century American economy.

 

[Approaching Infinity]

I think the following sections from Ponerology is apropos to the discussion here. I'll break it up with some comments:

Basic intelligence grows from this instinctual substratum under the influence
of an amicable environment and a readily accessible compendium of human experience;
it is intertwined with higher affect, enabling us to understand others and to
intuit their psychological state by means of some naive realism. This conditions
the development of moral reason.

This layer of our intelligence is widely distributed within society; the overwhelming
majority of people have it, which is why we can so often admire the
tact, the intuition, of social relationships, and sensible morality of people whose
intellectual gifts are only average. We also see people with an outstanding intellect
who lack these very natural values. As is the case with deficiencies in the
instinctual substratum, the deficits of this basic structure of our intelligence frequently
take on features we perceive as pathological.

Coupled with Haidt's work, I basically take this to mean that the vast majority of people in a society will follow the same basic moral code. Of course, there will be disagreements and differences, but I'm talking on a fundamental level. If you gather a random selection of individuals to play a game, the majority of them will follow the rules and any rule-breakers will be punished or shunned in some way. That doesn't mean that normal people will ALWAYS follow the rules. Situational context and conflicts in intentions/values can lead to moral failings, and there will be pathologicals. So you will get a minority who do not play fair: people with personality disorders (particularly those characterized by disagreeableness, like psychopaths, narcissists, and antisocials), and who are moral failures for whatever reason (I'm not sure if Lobaczewski would categorize the people in the last sentence above as psychopaths or characteropaths - I hadn't really noticed that sentence before until reading it this time...).

As long as the society is relatively healthy, moral failure and pathology will be checked to a significant degree, even if not entirely. Criminals will tend to be punished or incarcerated if caught, psychopaths will tend to be forced to move on to greener pastures if exposed, and moral failings will tend to be socially punished in some way to bring people back into line. The influence of psychopathology will perhaps tend to be limited to lower levels of analysis: interpersonal and small group. Wider social effects will be statistical, and not necessarily systemic. Picture a pyramid hierarchy or network where nodes are occasionally infected with pathology at random (some perhaps more than others), but where the overall structure remains dominated by people with at least the basic moral structure described above by Lobaczewski.

Then he gives some very Petersonian analysis:

The distribution of human intellectual capacity within societies is completely
different, and its amplitude has the greatest scope. Highly gifted people constitute
a tiny percentage of each population, and those with the highest quotient of intelligence
constitute only a few per thousand. In spite of this, however, the latter play
such a significant role in collective life that any society attempting to prevent them
from fulfilling their duty does so at its own peril. At the same time, individuals
barely able to master simple arithmetic and the art of writing are, in the majority,
normal people whose basic intelligence is often entirely adequate.

It is a universal law of nature that the higher a given species’ psychological
organization, the greater the psychological differences among individual units.
Man is the most highly organized species; hence, these variations are the greatest.
Both qualitatively and quantitatively, psychological differences occur in all structures
of the human personality dealt with here, albeit in terms of necessary oversimplification.
Profound psychological variegations may strike some as an injustice
of nature, but they are her right and have meaning.

Nature’s seeming injustice, alluded to above, is, in fact, a great gift to humanity,
enabling human societies to develop their complex structures and to be highly
creative at both the individual and collective level. Thanks to psychological variety,
the creative potential of any society is many times higher than it could possibly
be if our species were psychologically more homogeneous. Thanks to these
variations, the societal structure implicit within can also develop. The fate of human
societies depends upon the proper adjustment of individuals within this structure
and upon the manner in which innate variations of talents are utilized.

Our experience teaches us that psychological differences among people are the
cause of misunderstandings and problems. We can overcome these problems only
if we accept psychological differences as a law of nature and appreciate their
creative value. This would also enable us to gain an objective comprehension of
man and human societies; unfortunately, it would also teach us that equality under
the law is inequality under the law of nature.

Which is why SJW and most revolutionary approaches are so fatal: they actually destroy a vital part of the population, crippling it. Basically, healthy societies will show inequalities everywhere you can look, and they're actually necessary. But certain types of inequality (described more below) can severely weaken a society and present the opening for the ponerogenic process leading to a pathocratic social structure, where every node is occupied by someone with a personality disorder.

Next is the section on society, outlining the social things that contribute to our biology-based template:

Nature has designed man to be social, a state of affairs encoded early, on the
instinctual level of our species as described above. Our minds and personalities
could not possibly develop without contact and interaction with an ever-widening
circle of people. Our mind receives input from others, whether consciously or
unconsciously, in regard to matters of emotional and mental life, tradition and
thought, by means of resonant sensitivity, identification, imitation, and by exchange
of ideas, and permanent rules. The material we obtain in these ways is then
transformed by our psyche in order to create a new human personality, one we call
“our own”. However, our existence is contingent upon necessary links with those
who lived before, those who presently make up our society, and those who shall
exist in the future. Our existence only assumes meaning as a function of societal
bonds; hedonistic isolation causes us to lose our selves.

Which is one reason why evolutionary as opposed to revolutionary approaches to social change are recommended.

It is man’s fate to actively cooperate in giving shape to the fate of society by
two principal means: forming his individual and family life within it, and becoming
active in the sum total of social affairs based on his – hopefully sufficient –
comprehension of what needs to be done, what ought to be done, and whether or
not he can do it. This requires an individual to develop two somewhat overlapping
areas of knowledge about things; his life depends on the quality of this development,
as does his nation and humanity as a whole.

Again, a fairly Petersonian approach to civic responsibility and participation. Utopians tend to focus on the latter and ignore the former. After describing the laws of bee society, he writes:

If we observe the throngs of people crowding the streets of some great human
metropolis, we see what looks like individuals driven by their business and problems,
pursuing some crumb of happiness. However, such an oversimplification of
reality causes us to disregard the laws of social life which existed long before the
metropolis ever did, and which will continue to exist long after huge cities are
emptied of people and purpose. Loners in a crowd have a difficult time accepting
that reality, which – for them – exists in only potential form, although they cannot
perceive it directly.

Not sure exactly what he means in the last sentence, but the use of 'loners' makes me think he's referring to schizoid types who cannot quite grok the 'invisible' laws of social life. For them, they create potential social worlds (utopias) at odds with social realities, which when put into practice cause destruction because they are not in alignment with objective reality.

In reality, accepting the laws of social life in all their complexity, even if we
find initial difficulties in comprehending them, helps us to come, finally, to a
certain level of understanding that we acquire by something akin to osmosis.
Thanks to this comprehension, or even just an instinctive intuition of such laws,
an individual is able to reach his goals and mature his personality in action.
Thanks to sufficient intuition and comprehension of these conditions, a society is
able to progress culturally and economically and to achieve political maturity.
The more we progress in this understanding, the more social doctrines strike
us as primitive and psychologically naive, especially those based on the thoughts
of thinkers living during the 18th and 19th centuries which were characterized by
a dearth of psychological perception. The suggestive nature of these doctrines
derives from their oversimplification of reality, something easily adapted and used
in political propaganda. These doctrines and ideologies show their basic faults, in
regard to the understanding of human personalities and differences among people,
all rather clearly if viewed in the light of our natural language of psychological
concepts, and even more so in the light of objective language.

In other words, humans are more than qualified to create culturally, economically, and politically mature societies without the crutch of ideologies (and with pathological influence kept to a minimum). The way I see it, the economic organization of human societies developed adequately in different geographic areas and eras before the creation of socialisms and capitalisms as ideologies. Free-markets existed in various times and places over the past several millennia before economists tried to describe them and determine their laws. And social programs and strategies for the benefit of the dispossessed likewise existed. Sometimes we forgot important things (like periodic farmer-debt relief practiced in ancient Mesopotamia), but other times we learned something and advanced, in the manner described by Collingwood.

A psychologist’s view of society, even if based only on professional experience,
always places the human individual in the foreground; it then widens the
perspective to include small groups, such as families, and finally societies and
humanity as whole. We must then accept from the outset that an individual’s fate
is significantly dependent upon circumstance. When we gradually increase the
scope of our observations, we also gain a greater pictorial specificity of causative
links, and statistical data assume ever greater stability.

One problem with social and economic theories (and ideologies) is that they tend to neglect analysis on the level of the individual. But that's where analysis has to start.

In order to describe the interdependence between someone’s fate and personality,
and the state of development of society, we must study the entire body of
information collected in this area to date, adding a new work written in objective
language. Herein I shall adduce only a few examples of such reasoning in order to
open the door to questions presented in later chapters.

To be continued!

 

[trendsetter37]

@trendsetter37, perhaps just consider my post you quoted as an intermediate step, trying to formulate some thoughts that led me to the above conclusion about values and remembering Tucker's words that express it better than I ever could have.



Just let me elaborate on one point that I think is important. "Free market capitalism" is rooted in a whole philosophical/economic framework, namely neoclassical economics and homo economicus ("rational choice theory"). There's a specific view of human nature attached to it: humans as selfish, rational actors maximizing their payoffs, roughly speaking.

{snip}

I think we will just have to agree to disagree here.

But they are, by definition, the result of 'capitalism', right?

To me, this sounds like the "money is the root to all evil" trope. I understand where you're coming from; I just think the conclusion throws the baby out with the bathwater.

To answer your question, no. Capitalism simply states that you have the right to own private property and own the means by which you can produce something for consumers. The market or general populace provides the incentive and direction for price or other variances in the final product. The operative phrase here is "the market decides"; or put another way, and as Tucker Carlson puts it, the market should serve the people.

Monopolies do not use the market to determine their success. For example, a delivery service that could influence the price of fuel for competitors is acting as a monopoly. At that point it is not looking to serve the market but itself. It may even be an example of psychopathy on a different scale. The same type of situation can arise from different systems because it is not the system that's completely at fault it's the pathology.

 

[Approaching Infinity]

I think we will just have to agree to disagree here.

To me, this sounds like the "money is the root to all evil" trope. I understand where you're coming from; I just think the conclusion throws the baby out with the bathwater.

I agree. I think the most important thing here is to understand what we mean by these words. I tried to do that earlier in the thread, but not very well. If by capitalism we are just talking about what modern economists are talking about - and some specific policies recommended by economists based on those theories - then sure, there will be problems of psychology and ideology to a greater or lesser degree depending on which economists and economic theories we're talking about. Same with socialism (but I'll have more to say about socialist theories in a bit - need to get my notes in order). For example, I've got a book called "The Birthplace of Capitalism - The Middle East". Here are some of the chapter headings:

• The tamkarum entrepreneurs of ancient Mosopotamia
• The enduring market model of ancient Iraq
• Syrians and Phoenicians brought enterprise to Europe
• Aleppo, where world market prices were set
• Ancient Persia and the first known ideal of free-market policy
• China, the Silk Road and free market intellectuals
• India's entrepreneurial culture and the first proto-corporations
• Native American laissez faire
• The Arab tradition of free enterprise
• European colonialism and centralist control undermined the Eastern market model

While each period had its own thinkers who talked about the concepts (for example, the Confucian Mencius who thought markets should be free and property rights protected, and was anti-tax on market transactions), all these practices preceded the development of modern, Western economic theories. The practices weren't ideological innovations - that's a modern phenomenon that I think has contributed to some degree to the "market society" of the West (referencing the WhoWhatWhy podcast I mentioned earlier). It's kind of like religion: the ritual or practice comes first in many cases, then the theory or dogma develops after the fact.

 

[Woodsman]

Some thoughts about Socialism...

One of the things which stood out for me from David M. Jacobs' work with hypnotic memory recall of UFO abductees.., in his attempts to piece together a picture of what UFO life is like, was talk of "The Change".

Abductees reported that their Alien abductors would talk about some kind of 'Change' which was coming, and that abductees (presumably through their programming and manipulated genetics, etc.), were being prepared to participate in this change in some manner, perhaps in semi-leadership roles? Details were scant. However in extolling the virtues of the Change, one alien was reported to have said; "And everybody will be told what to do!" -Said as if the strains of having to exercise free will was an unwelcome and distasteful burden which would finally be shed. (That was my impression, anyway.)

And what a weird thing to say! What a weird thing to desire and work to see achieved. I hate being told what to do! -Except.., for when I don't. Hmm.

In the perfect socialist system, (and I'm assuming this has been achieved by Alien culture), all basic needs are taken care of by the state, in return for which, you have to follow state instructions. Tit for tat.

Think about it:

If you are the recipient of a UBI benefit, and you live with it for long enough so that you come to depend upon it, the argument must inevitably arise (and also seem perfectly reasonable!), "You like this? You like being taken care of? Well, okay then! But this food and energy needs to come from somewhere. What are you doing to help the state procure it? What are you doing to deserve being fed and clothed and sheltered?"

It's a bargain. Everybody must do their fair share. Everybody is equal, after all.

The state, like a large, multi-cellular organism, needs to consume resources in order to feed its many cells. And as a UBI receiving cell within that organism, you are faced with a choice: You can either use your Free Will to come up with an alternative means to feed and care for yourself, execute that plan through your own application of knowledge and will power and resource management, (and Capital) or....

You can abdicate all of that heavy and frightful responsibility and continue receiving free meals and free housing from the State, (remaining in a permanent state of childhood, really). And all you have to do is let somebody else make all your decisions for you. Ahhhh. What a relief!

-One of the most frightening things in the world is the prospect of facing a big upset in your life; learning suddenly that you have to move homes (and you don't know where to go!) Or suddenly learning that your present job is ending and you must look for new work. Who will take you? How will you survive?

Now, even for people who have faced this harsh Gauntlet of Life many times, who have survived and grown strong, who have built up skill sets and self-confidence.., such changes can still make them sweat and worry into the night and wish it would all just stop! All that choice? All that freedom? You can do anything you want! All possibilities are open, -including that of death and destruction and failure. It's all enough to shake even the strongest person to the core. Of course UBI is attractive!

Now.., imagine you are the second or third generation descendant in the New (Alien) Socialist Welfare State, living with UBI and having never had to face calamity or uncertainty in your life. Imagine then just how terrifying the prospect of a significant change would be which might throw into question your safety and your ability to eat and be sheltered! It might not even be possible at all to choose to face such questions.

We've seen the fear and hysterical response from among the Millennial Generation, (Safe spaces! Trigger Warnings! Cuddles!) -and all they were robbed of were a few years of hard knocks and scraped knees while growing up. How much worse would it be if they were robbed of all responsibilities? If they didn't even have role models or parents who were capable and strong? If all they had was their own soft weakness of body and spirit and the Authority of the State.

Of COURSE a socialist alien is going to rejoice at the thought of having, "Somebody tell us what to do!"

Of COURSE the socialist-leaning individual is going to crave propaganda and want to twist their brains around so that they can believe in a lying media. It means somebody else is in charge! You don't need a conspiracy of silence when the socialist population would rather throw you in prison than have you tear down their bubble of comfort with your whistle blowing!

They are trading their free will over to the collective, and this is the thing: the collective has no use for it. It is wasted there! What can a collective do with Free Will? No matter how technologically advanced, a collective can't hope to be more intelligent than a basic protoplasm. Is society self-aware? There is little indication that it is any smarter than the average slime mold; following mechanical, base instincts, growing and consuming (and reproducing?).

And what good is that? How is that realizing the gift of self awareness granted to us all by God? No wonder Free Will is such a paramount in our reality. No wonder the C's admonish: "Choose! Ask! Seek! Do it yourself!"

Socialism is the fear of reality writ large; the wish to go back to sleep. It is Organized Nihilism.

Capitalism may not be the opposite of Socialism, (it isn't, really), but it remains a great and effective mental tool, a clever trick for teasing perpetual energy from one's environment, ("Buy Low, Sell High!"). An essential tool for any self-respecting, brave individual who wants to face reality and have a chance of surviving and even prospering within it.