Almost 80% of philosophy majors favor socialism, poll finds (US)

(Jul 23, 2019 10:13 PM)Secular Sanity Wrote: I think he called Kant a Christian in disguise, didn't he?

Yah, he also called him the "Chinaman of Konigsberg". Along with disparaging the English as philosophers, and really ridiculing most of philosophy throughout history (especially anything with straightforward lineage to Plato). Not even his intellectual "godfather" Schopenhauer was spared a jab. Heralded are those (anti-)philosophers of the future who will be "free spirits" and critical rhetoricians.

In "Beyond Good and Evil", Nietzsche downright anticipates or forecasts the postmodernism nooks of another century that he's a forerunner of. Not just nudging dismissal toward certain ideas and values of the Enlightenment, but even specifically poking physicists, psychologists, material atomists, logicians, etc in the eye. The appeal to clever 19-year old male trolls of today whose only credo is lampooning institutions and etiquette with any aura of expert, authoritative, or prescriptive reverence about them shines forth here.

On the plus side, he planted a happenstance landmine in there (from the grave) for dear sister Elisabeth, by praising the Jews. Unfortunately, it apparently never went off in terms of warding away the winding march to a National Socialist buyout (in terms of money backing and public affection from the regime).

(Jul 24, 2019 01:40 AM)C C Wrote: In "Beyond Good and Evil", Nietzsche downright anticipates or forecasts the postmodernism nooks of another century that he's a forerunner of. Not just nudging dismissal toward certain ideas and values of the Enlightenment, but even specifically poking physicists, psychologists, material atomists, logicians, etc in the eye. The appeal to clever 19-year old male trolls of today whose only credo is lampooning institutions and etiquette with any aura of expert, authoritative, or prescriptive reverence about them shines forth here.

"There is no eternal reason-spider and reason-cobweb.
—to DANCE on the feet of chance." :grin

Speaking of riddles, C C, there is something that I’ve always wanted to ask you. I hate to trouble you with it, but I don’t know enough about her, and there’s so many different interpretations. If you have the time, will you give me your take on Plath’s poem?

(Jul 24, 2019 01:14 PM)Secular Sanity Wrote: Speaking of riddles, C C, there is something that I’ve always wanted to ask you. I hate to trouble you with it, but I don’t know enough about her, and there’s so many different interpretations. If you have the time, will you give me your take on Plath’s poem?

EDIT. Rather than post in two different places (where it's off-topic here), I guess I should do a redirct to: https://www.scivillage.com/thread-2910-p...l#pid30358

(Jul 24, 2019 01:20 AM)Secular Sanity Wrote:

(Jul 24, 2019 01:02 AM)Syne Wrote: That's all you got? Well, I did assume you were only asking so you could pretend to be better than others, without having anything of significant substance yourself. 

Nope. Just waiting for you to catch up. Did you get my swamp comment? You did say that you've read his work, right?

(Jul 22, 2019 01:22 AM)Syne Wrote: Thus the whole search is him trying to justify or escape his own self-pity. And it's his last sin when he realizes he need only let it go. The search and the distress.

Nietzsche seems to be relating that the only purpose is in struggle, and that happiness, as purpose, is impossible.

Do you still think this is correct?

Yeah, today's left is a perfect example of the virtue of sitting in the swamp, where they're scared of guns and need to be told what to think, lest they accidentally offend (bite) anyone.
I haven't read a lot of Nietzsche. Why, is that the next thing you'd like to use to bolster your ego? Wow, you can read. You go girl.

To a non-reader, reading seems like quite the challenge or accomplishment.

(Jul 24, 2019 01:02 AM)Syne Wrote: The difference is that the vast majority benefit from those, even if only as deterrents, insurance, or secondary benefits. That's why they aren't inherently socialist agencies. Cooperation is not exclusive to socialism. Some form of cooperation is a feature of just about every government system.

The definition of socialist is "government control of the means of production and distribution" for whatever the product is.  All those things are inherently socialist by definition.

The definition of socialist is NOT "things that don't benefit the vast majority."  Indeed, the purpose of socialism is to arrange for products (air traffic control, power, defense) to benefit society at large.  And as those examples demonstrate, that is often achieved.

(Jul 25, 2019 01:41 AM)billvon Wrote:

(Jul 24, 2019 01:02 AM)Syne Wrote:

(Jul 23, 2019 09:09 PM)billvon Wrote: It would be interesting to compare the results of that poll to a similar poll where the question was "do you support the US military? The US highway system? Air traffic control? The CDC? Town fire departments?" (i.e. all socialist agencies.) I suspect you'd see a very different distribution. Indeed, it might almost be the opposite distribution when the question focused on the military.

The difference is that the vast majority benefit from those, even if only as deterrents, insurance, or secondary benefits. That's why they aren't inherently socialist agencies. Cooperation is not exclusive to socialism. Some form of cooperation is a feature of just about every government system.

The definition of socialist is "government control of the means of production and distribution" for whatever the product is.  All those things are inherently socialist by definition.

The definition of socialist is NOT "things that don't benefit the vast majority."  Indeed, the purpose of socialism is to arrange for products (air traffic control, power, defense) to benefit society at large.  And as those examples demonstrate, that is often achieved.

The US military, highways, ATC, CDC, and FDs don't produce economic value.

In economics and sociology, the means of production (also called capital goods) are physical and non-financial inputs used in the production of economic value. These include raw materials, facilities, machinery and tools used in the production of goods and services. In the terminology of classical economics, the means of production are the "factors of production" minus financial and human capital. - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Means_of_production

This is why private companies are not eager to do any of these.

The definition of socialist also isn't cherry-picking a handful of specific services and endeavors and leaving the vast majority of the economy capitalist. At least Seattle seems to know the Scandinavian countries aren't actually socialist. I'm not so sure you do.

(Jul 25, 2019 02:21 AM)Syne Wrote:

(Jul 25, 2019 01:41 AM)billvon Wrote:

(Jul 24, 2019 01:02 AM)Syne Wrote:

(Jul 23, 2019 09:09 PM)billvon Wrote: It would be interesting to compare the results of that poll to a similar poll where the question was "do you support the US military?  The US highway system?  Air traffic control?  The CDC?  Town fire departments?" (i.e. all socialist agencies.)  I suspect you'd see a very different distribution.  Indeed, it might almost be the opposite distribution when the question focused on the military.

The difference is that the vast majority benefit from those, even if only as deterrents, insurance, or secondary benefits. That's why they aren't inherently socialist agencies. Cooperation is not exclusive to socialism. Some form of cooperation is a feature of just about every government system.

The definition of socialist is "government control of the means of production and distribution" for whatever the product is.  All those things are inherently socialist by definition.

The definition of socialist is NOT "things that don't benefit the vast majority."  Indeed, the purpose of socialism is to arrange for products (air traffic control, power, defense) to benefit society at large.  And as those examples demonstrate, that is often achieved.

The US military, highways, ATC, CDC, and FDs don't produce economic value.

In economics and sociology, the means of production (also called capital goods) are physical and non-financial inputs used in the production of economic value. These include raw materials, facilities, machinery and tools used in the production of goods and services. In the terminology of classical economics, the means of production are the "factors of production" minus financial and human capital. - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Means_of_production

This is why private companies are not eager to do any of these.

The definition of socialist also isn't cherry-picking a handful of specific services and endeavors and leaving the vast majority of the economy capitalist. At least Seattle seems to know the Scandinavian countries aren't actually socialist. I'm not so sure you do.

At least Seattle knows what he is talking about. Most countries have a balance of socialist policies and capitalistic policies. The Scandinavian countries have varied that mix in some years more than in other years but their percentages of socialist policies are generally higher than in the U.S.

Their tax rates and benefits provided are generally higher as well.

The definition of socialism that you provided has nothing to do with any point that you are trying to make.

Those things listed do provide things of economic value but they don't produce profits simply because they are owned by the government and they aren't trying to produce a profit. There are roads that are built by private companies and they do make a profit. Anything can make a profit if you structure it that way.

The industry has nothing to do with it being socialism. If I own an oil company it's for profit. If the government owns it, it's not for profit.

Billvon is correct in that the definition of socialism is when the government owns the means of production.

(Jul 25, 2019 05:02 AM)Seattle Wrote:

(Jul 25, 2019 02:21 AM)Syne Wrote:

(Jul 25, 2019 01:41 AM)billvon Wrote: The definition of socialist is "government control of the means of production and distribution" for whatever the product is.  All those things are inherently socialist by definition.

The definition of socialist is NOT "things that don't benefit the vast majority."  Indeed, the purpose of socialism is to arrange for products (air traffic control, power, defense) to benefit society at large.  And as those examples demonstrate, that is often achieved.

The US military, highways, ATC, CDC, and FDs don't produce economic value.

In economics and sociology, the means of production (also called capital goods) are physical and non-financial inputs used in the production of economic value. These include raw materials, facilities, machinery and tools used in the production of goods and services. In the terminology of classical economics, the means of production are the "factors of production" minus financial and human capital. - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Means_of_production

This is why private companies are not eager to do any of these.

The definition of socialist also isn't cherry-picking a handful of specific services and endeavors and leaving the vast majority of the economy capitalist. At least Seattle seems to know the Scandinavian countries aren't actually socialist. I'm not so sure you do.

At least Seattle knows what he is talking about. Most countries have a balance of socialist policies and capitalistic policies. The Scandinavian countries have varied that mix in some years more than in other years but their percentages of socialist policies are generally higher than in the U.S.

Their tax rates and benefits provided are generally higher as well.

The definition of socialism that you provided has nothing to do with any point that you are trying to make.

Those things listed do provide things of economic value but they don't produce profits simply because they are owned by the government and they aren't trying to produce a profit. There are roads that are built by private companies and they do make a profit. Anything can make a profit if you structure it that way.

The industry has nothing to do with it being socialism. If I own an oil company it's for profit. If the government owns it, it's not for profit.

Billvon is correct in that the definition of socialism is when the government owns the means of production.

Scandinavian countries can only afford to have socialist policies (which they've been moving away from due to their unsustainable costs) because they have capitalist economies. Some socialist policies do not make a government or its economy socialist. But yes, even the US is a mixed economy (free market and government regulation).

Okay, then how do those things provide economic value (someone willing to pay for it out of their own pocket)?
Yeah, and the military could make a profit if it were a mercenary force for hire. But we're not talking "ifs" here; we're talking about things as they are (as Billvon listed them). Anything else is either your own argument or a straw man.

No one disputed Billvon's definition of socialism, only him conflating cooperative action through government with socialism. That would make every government part socialist, and that's nonsense.

Quote:Scandinavian countries can only afford to have socialist policies (which they've been moving away from due to their unsustainable costs) because they have capitalist economies. Some socialist policies do not make a government or its economy socialist. But yes, even the US is a mixed economy (free market and government regulation).

Okay, then how do those things provide economic value (someone willing to pay for it out of their own pocket)?
Yeah, and the military could make a profit if it were a mercenary force for hire. But we're not talking "ifs" here; we're talking about things as they are (as Billvon listed them). Anything else is either your own argument or a straw man.

No one disputed Billvon's definition of socialism, only him conflating cooperative action through government with socialism. That would make every government part socialist, and that's nonsense.

No, it would not be nonsense. Most every government is part socialist, that is the point. A military base in your town will provide economic value. The military people will spend their salaries locally, jobs are provided, civilians will be hired. Aircraft purchased by the military is made by private company and jobs are provided there as well (and profit).

What it won't do is provide as much benefit as a manufacturer of a reusable project rather than bombs, for instance.

The ATC provides jobs just like they would do if their funding came from stockholders instead of taxpayers.

Retire your "straw man" and refrain from speaking on subjects where you have no knowledge or continue to embarrass yourself, mate.