Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

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

#71
billvon Offline
(Jul 25, 2019 02:21 AM)Syne Wrote: 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.

1) The definition of socialism does not require economic value as an output.  Its output can be pretty much anything - and indeed money need not enter into the equation.  It is government control of the means of production and distribution, not government control of value creation.

2) Defense, highways, ATC absolutely produce economic value.  The military protects our trade routes.  Highways allow shipment of goods.  ATC allows airlines to operate.  You could quite easily replace all those things with purely capitalistic organizations - but we wisely keep them socialist (in most cases) because they just plain work better that way.

3) Scandinavia is partly socialist, as are we.
Reply
#72
Yazata Online
I think that I'd define 'socialist' as government control of the economy. (And 'communist' as government ownership of the economy.)

Both of which are contrasted with 'market economies' in which buyers and sellers make decisions for themselves and the economy is the aggregate of all those decisions.

Defining things this way suggests that 'socialism' comes in degrees, since governments can exercise differing amounts of control over the economy.

And government ownership of this and that (military bases, roads etc.) needn't be either communism or socialism, if that government ownership doesn't extend to control of the economy as a whole.

So... I guess that I'm more inclined to see creeping 'socialism' in excessive regulation more than in outright government ownership. I see creeping socialism in situations where even if people are allowed to nominally own private property, a horde of regulations exist determining precisely what they can and can't do with it.

Of course some regulation can often be justified in the name of public safety and order. So the real-life universe of discourse isn't typically going to involve the reductio-ad-absurdem extremes: anything-goes Hobbesian laissez-faire on one hand, or totalitarian state ownership and control of all aspects of individual life on the other. The arguments and controversies are going to take place in the grey area, regarding where the individual freedom vs government control distinction should be placed in real-life situations.
Reply
#73
Syne Offline
(Jul 29, 2019 04:42 PM)billvon Wrote:
(Jul 25, 2019 02:21 AM)Syne Wrote: 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.

1) The definition of socialism does not require economic value as an output.  Its output can be pretty much anything - and indeed money need not enter into the equation.  It is government control of the means of production and distribution, not government control of value creation.

2) Defense, highways, ATC absolutely produce economic value.  The military protects our trade routes.  Highways allow shipment of goods.  ATC allows airlines to operate.  You could quite easily replace all those things with purely capitalistic organizations - but we wisely keep them socialist (in most cases) because they just plain work better that way.

3) Scandinavia is partly socialist, as are we.
No, even non-market socialist schemes rely on a valuation, even if just the physical resources themselves, just not through a common monetary currency. So, 1) cite a credible source for your seemingly idiosyncratic definition. Any valuation serves an economic function.

2) There's a difference between producing and protecting or facilitating. Crack a dictionary. If those are socialist then just about everything any form of government does is socialist...which is nonsense.

3) Apparently you missed this:
(Jul 27, 2019 07:20 PM)Syne Wrote: Sorry, AOC and Bernie Sanders: Scandinavia Is No Socialist Paradise

“Whatever you think about Sweden and what we did, you have to realize that we had a great society first,” Johan Norberg, a Swedish historian, filmmaker, and Cato Institute senior fellow, said in a recent lecture titled “No, Bernie! Scandinavia Is Not Socialist!”

“We were incredibly wealthy, we trusted each other socially, there was a decent life for everybody. That’s what made it possible to experiment with socialism; then it began to undermine many of those preconditions,”
...
However, the Constitutional Rights Foundation explains how the Swedish government places its heaviest taxes on the middle and lower classes, and all of the benefits they have such as universal health care and government-sponsored college education comes from steep taxes. Norberg pointed to the same data in his speech.

According to a Tax Foundation report, “Scandinavian income taxes raise a lot of revenue because they are actually rather flat. In other words, they tax most people at these high rates, not just high-income taxpayers.”
...
Danish Prime Minister [Lars Lokke] Rasmussen: ‘Some in the U.S. associate the Nordic model with some sort of socialism. Therefore, I would like to make one thing clear. Denmark is far from a socialist planned economy.’
...
“The bottom line: Copy the Nordic model if you like, but understand that it entails a lot of capitalism and pro-business policies, a lot of taxation on middle-class spending and wages, minimal reliance on corporate taxation, and plenty of co-pays and deductibles in its health care system,”


"Mixed economies" are not about socialism and capitalism. They are about free markets and regulation.




(Jul 29, 2019 06:40 PM)Yazata Wrote: I think that I'd define 'socialist' as government control of the economy. (And 'communist' as government ownership of the economy.)

Both of which are contrasted with 'market economies' in which buyers and sellers make decisions for themselves and the economy is the aggregate of all those decisions.

Defining things this way suggests that 'socialism' comes in degrees, since governments can exercise differing amounts of control over the economy.

And government ownership of this and that (military bases, roads etc.) needn't be either communism or socialism, if that government ownership doesn't extend to control of the economy as a whole.

So... I guess that I'm more inclined to see creeping 'socialism' in excessive regulation more than in outright government ownership. I see creeping socialism in situations where even if people are allowed to nominally own private property, a horde of regulations exist determining precisely what they can and can't do with it.

Of course some regulation can often be justified in the name of public safety and order. So the real-life universe of discourse isn't typically going to involve the reductio-ad-absurdem extremes: anything-goes Hobbesian laissez-faire on one hand, or totalitarian state ownership and control of all aspects of individual life on the other. The arguments and controversies are going to take place in the grey area, regarding where the individual freedom vs government control distinction should be placed in real-life situations.

I agree. Since almost every government throughout much of history has included militaries and roads, calling these socialist implies that socialism is a necessary factor in almost every government system, regardless of how disparate from the goals of socialist theory. It renders the word largely meaningless to include some of the most basic forms of government defense, responsibility, and cooperation as socialist.
Reply
#74
billvon Offline
(Jul 30, 2019 03:19 AM)Syne Wrote: No, even non-market socialist schemes rely on a valuation, even if just the physical resources themselves, just not through a common monetary currency. So, 1) cite a credible source for your seemingly idiosyncratic definition. Any valuation serves an economic function.
Agreed.  It has to provide value.

"2) There's a difference between producing and protecting or facilitating. "

Also agreed.  And all three provide value.  What's the value of military protection?  The amount you would have to spend to obtain mercenaries to provide the same protection.  So you have a choice - use purely capitalistic means (paid private mercenaries) or socialistic means (a government controlled military.)  Your choice.  Here in the US we chose the socialistic route.

"Since almost every government throughout much of history has included militaries and roads, calling these socialist implies that socialism is a necessary factor in almost every government system, regardless of how disparate from the goals of socialist theory. "

Not at all.  Some roads are toll roads, operated by private companies.  These have varying degrees of what that covers.  Sometimes the tolls simply cover the construction costs the company accrued by purchasing the land and building the road, with some profit thrown in.  Sometimes the tolls cover even less - the government provides the land and the company does the construction.  Completely private roads (i.e. land purchased, road constructed, traffic laws enforced, liability carried by company) are less common, and generally only occur on private land, like a private resort development.

Again, we have a choice - capitalist control/operation of roads (toll/private roads) or socialist roads (everyone can use them, mandatory taxes/fees pay for them.)  We have generally chosen socialist roads here.  No problem with that.  But telling yourself "I like them so they are not socialist" is self-deception.
Reply
#75
Syne Offline
(Jul 30, 2019 06:56 PM)billvon Wrote:
(Jul 30, 2019 03:19 AM)Syne Wrote: No, even non-market socialist schemes rely on a valuation, even if just the physical resources themselves, just not through a common monetary currency. So, 1) cite a credible source for your seemingly idiosyncratic definition. Any valuation serves an economic function.
Agreed.  It has to provide value.

"2) There's a difference between producing and protecting or facilitating. "

Also agreed.  And all three provide value.  What's the value of military protection?  The amount you would have to spend to obtain mercenaries to provide the same protection.  So you have a choice - use purely capitalistic means (paid private mercenaries) or socialistic means (a government controlled military.)  Your choice.  Here in the US we chose the socialistic route.

"Since almost every government throughout much of history has included militaries and roads, calling these socialist implies that socialism is a necessary factor in almost every government system, regardless of how disparate from the goals of socialist theory. "

Not at all.  Some roads are toll roads, operated by private companies.  These have varying degrees of what that covers.  Sometimes the tolls simply cover the construction costs the company accrued by purchasing the land and building the road, with some profit thrown in.  Sometimes the tolls cover even less - the government provides the land and the company does the construction.  Completely private roads (i.e. land purchased, road constructed, traffic laws enforced, liability carried by company) are less common, and generally only occur on private land, like a private resort development.

Again, we have a choice - capitalist control/operation of roads (toll/private roads) or socialist roads (everyone can use them, mandatory taxes/fees pay for them.)  We have generally chosen socialist roads here.  No problem with that.  But telling yourself "I like them so they are not socialist" is self-deception.

Nope, you still haven't provided a source for your idiosyncratic definition. Until you do, arguing you're bare assertion is pointless.
You are conflating capitalism/socialism with free market/regulation. They are not the same.
Reply
#76
billvon Offline
(Jul 31, 2019 02:12 AM)Syne Wrote: Nope, you still haven't provided a source for your idiosyncratic definition. Until you do, arguing you're bare assertion is pointless.

Socialism: a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control 
of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.

Source: dictionary.com

"You are conflating capitalism/socialism with free market/regulation. They are not the same."

That's funny!  You just conflated capitalism and socialism by putting them on one side of a comparison.  They are really not the same.

Socialist roads - roads run by the government and paid for by taxes.
Capitalist roads - roads on private property, controlled by a private concern for profit or enabling other profit.

Socialist military - military run by the government and paid for by taxes.
Capitalist military - military run by a private organization who provides military services for a fee.

Can you tell the difference?
Reply
#77
Syne Offline
(Jul 31, 2019 04:05 AM)billvon Wrote:
(Jul 31, 2019 02:12 AM)Syne Wrote: Nope, you still haven't provided a source for your idiosyncratic definition. Until you do, arguing you're bare assertion is pointless.

Socialism: a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control
of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.

Source: dictionary.com
Yep, socialism is "a theory or system of social organization", not "the theory" of any and all social organization. Dodgy
You seem to have forgotten, or intentionally avoiding, the point you seem to be trying to address. Namely, a definition that explicitly includes any of your bare assertions:
(Jul 23, 2019 09:09 PM)billvon Wrote: "do you support the US military? The US highway system? Air traffic control? The CDC? Town fire departments?" (i.e. all socialist agencies.)

Quote:"You are conflating capitalism/socialism with free market/regulation. They are not the same."

That's funny!  You just conflated capitalism and socialism by putting them on one side of a comparison.  They are really not the same.
Are you really that thick? O_o

Quote:Socialist roads - roads run by the government and paid for by taxes.
Capitalist roads - roads on private property, controlled by a private concern for profit or enabling other profit.

Socialist military - military run by the government and paid for by taxes.
Capitalist military - military run by a private organization who provides military services for a fee.

Can you tell the difference?
Again, you are claiming that anything done by any form of government is, de facto, socialist. It's a transparently ignorant claim, and you've yet to cite any reference that would lend it the least bit of credence.
Reply


Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Bayesianism + Philosophy of space and time + Intro to philosophy of race C C 0 75 Aug 7, 2022 03:45 PM
Last Post: C C
  Religion vs Philosophy in 3 Minutes + Philosophy of Science with Hilary Putnam C C 2 614 Oct 16, 2019 05:26 PM
Last Post: C C
  Bring back science & philosophy as natural philosophy C C 0 492 May 15, 2019 02:21 AM
Last Post: C C
  The return of Aristotelian views in philosophy & philosophy of science: Goodbye Hume? C C 1 667 Aug 17, 2018 02:01 PM
Last Post: Zinjanthropos
  Spellbound Requesting Favor Ostronomos 17 1,923 Jan 12, 2017 06:08 PM
Last Post: Ostronomos



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)