The Truth About Socialism

[bshole]

Glen, here is some data for you.

Conservative taxation scheme results... surprise surprise lowering taxes on the rich benefit....... the rich! What a fucking surprise.

 

[glenn1]

I got one for you. Insurance have a profit motive in denying you coverage or denying procedures. Your health in secondary to their wealth. I can see how patients would benefit from socializing medicine. Can you?

Sure some would be better off, that's the entire premise of socialism. What it ignores is that by definition others are made worse off to prive

I got one for you. Insurance have a profit motive in denying you coverage or denying procedures. Your health is secondary to their wealth. I can see how patients would benefit from socializing medicine. Can you?

Sure, I'll admit that if you likewise admit those who need to pay for that patient to benefit are made worse off. Basically the entire argument about socialism comes down to whether you believe you'll "win" or "lose" in the end since all redistribution is doing is moving money from one pocket to another one. If it had positive effects on its own merits without losses then those who want to "help the little guy" would already be helping them via voluntary charity and we know they aren't. Even the language they use of "I'd gladly pay higher taxes to ____" admits they know they'd be the losers in the tradeoff and would only agree to it if forced by law.

 

[woolfe9998]

No. I took his argument, switched out the items to exemplify how it was wrong.

Sorry, what you actually did was clearly this:

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/False_analogy

 

[nickqt]

Every single feature of "socialism" you mentioned earlier was a non-rivalrous good like roads which basically all nations have agreed to socialize and few conservatives or libertarians really disagree with. Having roads doesn't oblige us to therefore support wealth redistribution and you haven't made a single argument for why or how socializing any rivalrous or excludable goods would benefit anyone. It all comes down to "well the rich guy has more than me and that's not fair."

Cosmetics: perfect for capitalism. Non-requirement for fellow human beings to live a decent life. Same with designer purses, smart phones, leather furniture, hardwood floors, stained glass windows, etc.

Water, gas/electric, internet, medicine, shelter, food, clothing, roadways: requirements for fellow human beings to live a decent life. Not good for capitalism, as these basic human requirements are arbitrarily limited to certain human beings who can get all of the necessities, and limited from certain human beings who are unable to get most, or even some, of those basic human requirements. How any American can be not only OK, but proud ,that fellow citizens are unable to get basic human requirements, is beyond me. But I'm also not a sociopath.

Protip: the rich use their money to consolidate their power so they can then get more wealth, by writing tax laws, regulations, etc. More money = more power. In every single society, ever, forever. And it always becomes a positive feedback loop. There is never "enough" once inside the loop.

If you do not tax the rich in ways to force them to choose between consolidating their wealth/power slowly, or investing in their wealth-creating enterprise which helps society while allowing the rich to maintain their ownership stake in that wealth, they will, every fucking time, work towards consolidating their wealth/power quickly. Almost always, of course, to the detriment of all of society in which their enterprises operate. Which always leads to oligarchy, and then aristocracy. Which is why society, d/b/a government, has the ability to tax things. At least the functional societies. Non-functional societies do not have the power to tax the rich/powerful. See: Mexico, South America, Africa, and most other countries without any form of middle class.

But go ahead and ignore all human history, because taxes = stealing, or whatever lame conjuring phrase has been burned into your psyche by the aristocracy-minded rich who do not care about their fellow human beings, just like textbook sociopaths. They need all the cheering on they can get by the rabble. They really appreciate it.

 

[glenn1]

Glen, here is some data for you.

Conservative taxation scheme results... surprise surprise lowering taxes on the rich benefit....... the rich! What a fucking surprise.

So the 50th percentile had their wealth double from 1963 to 1983 and up another 15% from 1983 to 2016. That's a great thing. Your problem is you're too focused on what someone else got to appreciate your own good fortune. Stop trying to "keep up with the joneses" of the higher percentiles and you'll be a lot happier and mentally balanced.

 

[realibrad]

Sorry, what you actually did was clearly this:

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/False_analogy

Ill gladly admit that to be true, but you first need to explain why its a false analogy.

You would need to show what analogies I gave. What conclusions I drew from those analogies.

The first part is easy, the 2nd part we will disagree most likely.

 

[Thebobo]

Three is nothing wrong with socialism. You can't call a dictatorships like VZ and Cuba a socialist country imo.

 

[bshole]

So the 50th percentile had their wealth double from 1963 to 1983 and up another 15% from 1983 to 2016. That's a great thing. Your problem is you're too focused on what someone else got to appreciate your own good fortune. Stop trying to "keep up with the joneses" of the higher percentiles and you'll be a lot happier and mentally balanced.

I love the conservative support for pillaging the middle class.

In the first 20 years, the middle class wealth went up 100% along with the wealthy (everybody prospered). In the next 20 years as the conservative tax policy really took effect, middle class wealth went up only 15%, all that lost middle class wealth went straight to the looters who had an amazing tripling of net wealth. And this is what Glen celebrates and wants.

Well if you love it Glen, you are lucky because that is all we are ever going to get. The rich now control the political system completely. If you are lucky, the rich won't be paying taxes at all by the time you die... so you may be able to die a happy man.

Imagine a world without Glen's conservative taxes and with progressive taxes still intact. A world where the middle class and wealthy both shared in the largess and both doubled in the last 20 years. A world where middle class wealth was 164,000 and the the 1% was 6.6 million. This is world that Glen does not want to live in and I cannot fathom why.

 

[realibrad]

Three is nothing wrong with socialism. You can't call a dictatorships like VZ and Cuba a socialist country imo.

Why not?

 

[woolfe9998]

Ill gladly admit that to be true, but you first need to explain why its a false analogy.

You would need to show what analogies I gave. What conclusions I drew from those analogies.

The first part is easy, the 2nd part we will disagree most likely.

I believe others have already explained very well why it was a false analogy. You were trying to suggest that Eski was assuming that correlation=causation by picking some random thing - in this case rape - which is also present in the countries being discussed, and using that in reductio ad absurdum fashion to show that correlation doesn't mean causation.

The problem is, as has been said, socialism is a system of economics i.e. distribution of resources. Hence, there is a plausable causal connection between the presence of socialism and whatever economic state the country is question is in. Rape, OTOH, is not a system of resource distribution and has little to no impact on economics. Hence, it was a false analogy. The difference being that his correlation is evidence that implies causation even if it doesn't go all the way to proving it beyond doubt, but in your analogy the correlation creates no relevant inference whatsoever.

I totally get that we can't be 100% certain of causation without a more sophisticated analysis that isolates the socialistic policies from other variables. However, a strong correlation - and this one is quite strong given the large number of countries we're talking about - creates a powerful inference of causation. That and a plausible causal connection - which we have here and you do not have in your rape analogy - is a reasonable starting point for the argument. If you want a more thorough approach, you're probably going to have to do some heavy reading.

Either way, your analogy fails.

 

[bshole]

Why not?

When all the wealth accrues to the dear leader it is hardly socialist. It is the polar opposite.

 

[realibrad]

I believe others have already explained very well why it was a false analogy. You were trying to suggest that Eski was assuming that correlation=causation by picking some random thing - in this case rape - which is also present in the countries being discussed, and using that in reductio ad absurdum fashion to show that correlation doesn't mean causation.

The problem is, as has been said, socialism is a system of economics i.e. distribution of resources. Hence, there is a plausable causal connection between the presence of socialism and whatever economic state the country is question is in. Rape, OTOH, is not a system of resource distribution and has little to no impact on economics. Hence, it was a false analogy. The difference being that his correlation is evidence that implies causation even if it doesn't go all the way to proving it beyond doubt, but in your analogy the correlation creates no relevant inference whatsoever.

I totally get that we can't be 100% certain of causation without a more sophisticated analysis that isolates the socialistic policies from other variables. However, a strong correlation - and this one is quite strong given the large number of countries we're talking about - creates a powerful inference of causation. That and a plausible causal connection - which we have here and you do not have in your rape analogy - is a reasonable starting point for the argument. If you want a more thorough approach, you're probably going to have to do some heavy reading. Either way, your analogy fails.

No, I never tried to compare rape to socialism in terms of their effects on economics. I did was to say that just because the economies are good, does not make all the parts that go into that economy good. So socialism, which is not the only component cannot be justified or discredited because there are other factors that are going in.

Then, I said that if that were true, that society being good, would also imply that rape, which is one of many parts, would also have to be good.

The comparison was System A vs System B relative to the inputs of thing X and thing Y.
A&X
B&Y

At no point did I compare A&X to A&Y.

 

[realibrad]

When all the wealth accrues to the dear leader it is hardly socialist. It is the polar opposite.

How would that go against either Socialism or Capitalism? I can see Communism, but not the other two.

 

[bshole]

Page after page of bickering over whether an analogy is apt or not. I just don't get it.

 

[bshole]

How would that go against either Socialism or Capitalism? I can see Communism, but not the other two.

Neither Socialism or Communism is founded on the idea that the leader gets to keep all of the wealth for himself. In autocratic societies, all of the wealth tends to end up in the autocrat's hands and it doesn't matter much if you want to call it socialism or communism or crony capitalism.

 

[realibrad]

Page after page of bickering over whether an analogy is apt or not. I just don't get it.

Perhaps you want to explain why you think Capitalism leads to the government taking peoples privately held land then?

 

[realibrad]

Neither Socialism or Communism is founded on the idea that the leader gets to keep all of the wealth for himself. In autocratic societies, all of the wealth tends to end up in the autocrat's hands and it doesn't matter much if you want to call it socialism or communism or crony capitalism.

So then why is it the opposite if you are saying its unrelated?

 

[Thebobo]

Why not?

One of the ideals of socialism is sharing you can't share leadership and control when there is a dictatorship.

 

[Thebobo]

Neither Socialism or Communism is founded on the idea that the leader gets to keep all of the wealth for himself. In autocratic societies, all of the wealth tends to end up in the autocrat's hands and it doesn't matter much if you want to call it socialism or communism or crony capitalism.

Ding ding ding

 

[realibrad]

One of the ideals of socialism is sharing you can't share leadership and control when there is a dictatorship.

No.

 

[ElFenix]

When all the wealth accrues to the dear leader it is hardly socialist. It is the polar opposite.

we used to call it feudalism or empire.

 

[fskimospy]

It's a non-rivalrous good that benefits everyone and thus a good candidate for a "socialist" solution. Neither you, Fskimospy, or anyone has (or probably can) articulate a rationale for why socializing rivalrous goods is a good thing.

Of course people have, don’t be ridiculous. Education is certainly a resource that must be competed for, yet I think few people would argue that society would be better off if we returned to a system where only those whose parents could pay for it would make for a more productive country.

 

[Thebobo]

No.

YES

 

[woolfe9998]

No, I never tried to compare rape to socialism in terms of their effects on economics. I did was to say that just because the economies are good, does not make all the parts that go into that economy good. So socialism, which is not the only component cannot be justified or discredited because there are other factors that are going in.

Then, I said that if that were true, that society being good, would also imply that rape, which is one of many parts, would also have to be good.

The comparison was System A vs System B relative to the inputs of thing X and thing Y.
A&X
B&Y

At no point did I compare A&X to A&Y.

What you just wrote is literally not one iota different than how I described your argument. I understood your argument perfectly well. You're saying "correlation doesn't prove causation" i.e. other variables besides socialism may be causing these countries to have strong economies. I get it.

The problem is that you're dismissing his observation of strong correlation as unpersuasive when in fact it's quite persuasive. Correlation doesn't prove causation to 100% certainty on its own. However, correlation is like circumstantial evidence in court - the stronger it is, the more powerful the inference of guilt, even though technically it never gets you to 100% certainty.

Let's use your chosen subject of rape to illustrate what I'm talking about. For decades, feminists have claimed that pornography causes rape. That's a hypothesis. Here are the empirical facts: over the past 20 years, consumption of pornography has increased about five fold due to the internet, while at the same time, in both the U.S. and Japan, rape has declined by about 60%. What we have here is a strong correlation, in this case an inverse one, where more pornography correlates with less rape. Yet we haven't proven to an absolute certainty that pornography decreases rape, or even that pornography doesn't increase it. Why? Because there could be many other variables which have caused rape to decline. Pornography could still be increasing rape, but five other variables are driving it down by more than pornography is increasing it.

However, the strength of this correlation does weaken the feminist hypothesis even if it doesn't quite dispose of it entirely. A less strong correlation would be like if pornography consumption went up by only 10% while at the same time rape went down by only 10%. There, the chance that other variables are driving the decline in rape is higher. But with the strength of this actual correlation, a five fold increase in the one correlating with a 60% drop in the other, it's a body blow to the feminist hypothesis even if it isn't quite a knockout punch.

The thing about economies in the world is that literally every successful economy where there is a high standard of living is one based on a mix of socialist and capitalist elements, while at the same time, the unsuccessful ones don't really have such a mix. In particular, less developed countries tend to have corrupt and incompetent governments which are not willing or able to dispense services, i.e. the kinds of things like social safety nets and guaranteed healthcare which are a function of socialistic policies. Accordingly, the correlational evidence is strong here, and hence, so too is the inference of causation.

If you want more certainty of causation, you're going to have to read some books or long articles on the subject which crunch a lot of data. In particular, you'll want to look at analyses of specific socialistic policies and see what the evidence suggests about the impact of implementing such policies in specific countries. You are unlikely to find a detailed analysis of "socialism" so much as specific policies which people often refer to as socialistic. If you find something interesting, go ahead and link it to generate further discussion.

 

[glenn1]

Of course people have, don’t be ridiculous. Education is certainly a resource that must be competed for, yet I think few people would argue that society would be better off if we returned to a system where only those whose parents could pay for it would make for a more productive country.

Actually it just means you don’t know the difference between rivalrous and excludable goods. Primary education is an excludable good as you can hire more teachers, it’s not rivalrous because adding another student to an existing class doesn’t prevent the existing students from consuming.

It also kinda proves my point the only socialism worth having are non-rivalrous things which create unambiguously positive externalities for everyone in society (like roads and primary education). There’s no positive externalities fur society for any activities done for “fairness” or redistributionist reasons, it’s a zero sum event basically by definition. Your feelings about fairness about wealth distribution isn’t a positive externality no matter how much you want it to be.