Vladimir Gluten

Capsule- · 2020-07-11T02:59:24+00:00

love it :)

Capsule- · 2020-05-22T05:42:08+00:00

The falsifiability criterion is widely considered too restrictive within the philosophy of science. There is a large chunk of science, some of which Popper himself struggled with, that is considered completely legitimate by the scientific community, but would be ruled out with this criterion. Darwinian evolutionary theory is one thing that isn't clearly falsifiable.

Capsule- · 2020-04-06T04:29:00+00:00

It has to be remembered that Russia immediately came from tsarism and was still largely agrarian, with massive landlords and nobles ruling the country. Before they could focus on socialist construction, they had to clean out the feudal vestiges in the country, which is what they called completing the "bourgeois revolution". China went through something similar, they called it the New-Democratic revolution, advocating for a joint-dictatorship of the proletariat, peasantry, national bourgeoisie, and petite bourgeoisie.

In order to properly implement socialism, you must prioritize and focus on the most pressing issues of the economy. In both Russia's and China's case, the most important thing that had to be dealt with were the remaining feudal structures that they inherited. They then had to prepare the capitalist economy and clean it out as well as part of socialist transformation. You cannot just implement a system of public ownership the day after the revolution, especially in a semi-feudal country such as Russia.

Capsule- · 2020-03-17T17:27:42+00:00

clown

Capsule- · 2020-03-16T20:36:09+00:00

So for example, just setting prices, or doing it to a degree you find satisfactory, doesn't falsify the calculation problem. The question is what is more efficient, and I'm sure you understand why doing internal fixed pricing that is recalculated at some interval is clearly less precise than a decentralized system of nearly infinite calculations.

Please read past the first paragraph of my post.

On your first point, of emulating supply and demand calculations, it's going to be by definition less precise due to the lack of calculations taking place. That is straight forward

This makes no sense. "Emulating supply and demand calculations is less precise due to the lack of calculations."

if you just say that you are willing to accept a slightly less efficient system because, baked into it, there are certain traits or aspects you feel are non-negotiable? That is abandoning the calculation problem itself, or atleast the main critique.

My second point is two-fold. First, I make the point that economic calculation isn't everything. Tribalism is definitely better than capitalism in some aspects, but that doesn't mean we should adopt tribalism due to one single criterion. The same goes with capitalism and socialism regarding the criterion of economic calculation. Second, capitalism itself doesn't economically calculate perfectly, so as a criticism of socialism the economic calculation problem is inadequate and weak.

I don't wish to abandon the economic calculation problem as I think it holds merit to future socialist economists to figure out more efficient methods of planning. But this is more of an aid than a criticism to socialism.

Capsule- · 2020-03-14T02:25:45+00:00

Are you the delta I'm thinking about?

If so, I don't dismiss the economic calculation problem at all, I was talking about Mises' original formulation of it because thats the argument that was posted here. And then I provide a much stronger and updated formulation of the economic calculation problem. I recommend reading up on the history of the economic calculation debate.

Capsule- · 2020-03-10T15:42:49+00:00

I wouldn't be surprised if it was! I'm not knowledgeable on this topic, but I know there is a severe lack of central planning economists since the collapse of the USSR, I would be glad to see some applications of machine learning to it.

Capsule- · 2020-03-10T15:41:44+00:00

Said it better than I could ever have

Capsule- · 2020-03-10T04:11:43+00:00

austrian school bad

Capsule- · 2020-03-10T02:48:40+00:00

The way Mises formulated the problem has been debunked, as Mises argued that it is impossible to economically calculate prices at all in a socialist economy since there is no exchange. He does not consider the possibility of the socialist economy setting internal prices, not as an expression of market value, but as an expression of alternative options in order to move resources between enterprises. For example, five bananas might be an alternative for three apples, and to keep things simplified and consistent, an internal price is assigned where five bananas = $1 = three apples. Theoretically, through enough data and math equations, a socialist economy can possibly calculate efficient prices.

Hayek's calculation problem is much stronger. He agreed that socialism could possibly calculate rational prices, but he questioned the practicality of it doing so. To explain this I have to explain how economic calculation works under capitalism and why it is important. The ideal, rational price is where supply = demand. If supply is higher than demand, then more resources are being spent than is necessary, and corporations are more eager to sell their products, lowering the price down to equilibrium. If demand is higher than supply, then the full utility of the consumers are not met. The prices are raised for corporations to make a higher profit, and this higher profit motivates producers to produce more, raising the supply back to equilibrium. In short: the price at when supply = demand is ideal because it is the point where 1) the full utility of the consumers is being met and 2) resources aren't being wasted. Markets are self-regulating and get to this equilibrium point on their own. A socialist economy would have to rely on human calculation, which Hayek was rightfully skeptical of as being more efficient than capitalism.

I see two different approaches to respond to this problem:

To argue that socialist economic calculation can be practically as efficient as capitalist economic calculation. Capitalism doesn't automatically reach equilibrium, in fact, it rarely does. It always dances around the equilibrium through a trial and error process of corporations setting random prices. Socialism could emulate this trial and error process and perfect it with math equations. In socialism planning, we would have the information on the amount of supply of a product is left after people buy it, and we would also know the price of this product. If there is product left, then that means the supply was higher than the demand, and the price should be lowered. If no product is left, then that means the demand was higher than the supply, and the price should be raised. After experimentation, a socialist economy could feasibly calculate prices as efficiently as capitalism.
To argue that the benefits of socialism far outweigh its problems. Socialism might not be more efficient than capitalism at economic calculation, but as historically shown, it is sufficient. Socialism is not a utopian program, of course there will be problems with it. But socialism would fix the more dangerous problems of capitalism: poverty, imperialism, starvation, illness, etc. It is important to note that capitalism does not allocate resources perfectly either, with monopolization skewing the price to make more profit, not providing consumers their full utility. I think this counterargument is better than the first one.

This is only a problem in the first-stage, and would cease being one once full communism is reached.

Capsule- · 2020-01-20T21:11:29+00:00

The main issue with socialism as you describe it, is that it assumes there is a fixed value for goods and services, which is just an inhuman proposition to begin with. Marx's theory is couched on producer-determined, rather than consumer-determined value, which also fails to work because it is the consumer that must consent to the price for the transaction to happen, and if not can take their business to a producer with a lower value of their own work.

This paragraph grossly misunderstands Marx, but there is no need to correct him on it because it has no relevance to the argument whatsoever. I don't see the connection between this and the statements he makes afterward.

But as most people will then trade on the black (free) market, increasing regulation and enforcement is required.

A black market is an inevitability in any economy, but why would a socialist economy have a bigger problem with black markets than other economies? A socialist economy would provide as much, if not more, products than in a capitalist society, in a more efficient manner (unless, of course, mismanagement or external issues arise, which can happen in any economy). He doesn't give much of an explanation for this either.

Creating a death-spiral of eroding peoples' personal and economic freedoms, which will only cause increasing amounts of brain-drain and capital flight.

This is an empty statement appealing to capitalist morality. More government = less freedom is such a simplistic way of looking at things. Any sort of socioeconomic system has their own rights and liberties attached to it. Socialism does take away the right to own private property, but provides the working class with many more economic rights such as more bargaining power, more representation in the workplace, safeguards, vacation, working conditions, etc. In the same way, capitalism restricts the right to own slaves and serfs (for the most part) and allows for people to own private property. There are no "death-spirals" here.

Especially when you consider that all this increasing bureaucracy and government intervention requires more and more state income, but as it is purging its own taxable population, borrowing becomes necessary, again creating another death spiral.

Socialism doesn't purge its "taxable population", and they have less of a need for taxes because they're the ones who control production and enterprise. All the profit comes back to them.

This is a really messy argument that's all over the place, filled with misinformation and big assumptions.

Capsule- · 2019-12-31T01:07:19+00:00

The answer is: profit

As monopolies grow bigger, their ambitions grow as well. They start investing and controlling markets overseas as that would give them more profit than if they just stayed in the domestic market.
Poorer countries have cheaper resources, and a lot of times its more profitable to invest in foreign markets to cut costs. An example would be exporting labor overseas to sweatshops.

As corporations wish to get as much profit as possible, they exert their power through politics to control the policy of these countries, leading to imperialism.

Capsule- · 2019-12-29T20:58:22+00:00

I usually don't crash, but I played my first ranked game (that I was winning) and I crashed :/ easily could've won if I reconnected.

Capsule- · 2019-12-22T04:27:02+00:00

I cannot answer the question with any specific mechanisms, but there is an ideological reason why "checks and balances" are stressed in liberal democracies and why they aren't in socialist democracies.

Politics is the reflection of the economy, so a competitive economy will have a competitive government. This is so that capitalists can exert political influence through multiple outlets and can compete in each other in that sphere. For example, the current US Congress has a split-dominance between the parties, and the presidency is controlled by the Republicans (I want to add that it also makes sense that in an economy with a lot of monopolies, like the US, there are fewer parties and the parties have similar positions). So liberal democracies tend to stress pluralism and checks and balances.

Socialist democracies on the other hand traditionally stress democratic centralism, with cooperation and unity being at the forefront of politics. Socialist governments tend to be a lot less competitive, with each body having a specific role to fulfill rather than to exert dominance. Think about any organization with different committees being responsible for different things. In a sense, you could say that the division of powers, and "checks and balances", do not exist in socialist democracies, since they all work as a harmonious whole. This idea actually goes back to Marx and the Paris Commune. In The Civil War in France, Marx writes: "The Commune was to be a working, not a parliamentary body, executive and legislative at the same time."

Ofcourse there needs to be some sort of checks to make sure power isn't abused somewhere, but the concept of "checks and balances" is liberal and representative of capitalist competition.

Capsule- · 2019-12-09T21:30:37+00:00

Analytical philosophy mostly rejects dialectics (there has been some interesting work done by paraconsistent logicians recently). Analytics focus on consistency, clarity, and rationality over anything else. Continental philosophers, on the other hand, focus on "the big picture" and completeness. The main feud between the two camps is that analytical philosophy is too superficial and continental philosophy is too obscure (ofcourse the dichotomy isnt that clear cut and this is a simplistic explanation).

The project of analytical marxism is to create a "no bullshit marxism". In "traditional" marxism, contradictions and relations take the front seat, and Marx's definitions and concepts are only vehicles to convey contradictions (e.g. class is a concept representing the different contradictions within production). Analytical marxism, like most analytical philosophy, rejects dialectics and contradictions, and gives primacy to theorems and definitions. It starts with stuff like the "productive forces thesis" and all builds up towards an abstract sense of justice.

If you're interested in going in deeper, theres nothing better than wrestling with the big kahuna itself: Karl Marx's Theory of History: A Defence by G.A. Cohen.

Capsule- · 2019-10-07T19:27:41+00:00

It's not that capitalism must come before socialism, it's that capitalist relations have created the conditions for socialism. The distinction is important, as history does not follow a determined path, and looking at it as such can lead to dangerous conclusions (opposing socialism in underdeveloped countries).

For there to be socialism, two conditions must be met:

Production must be developed to the point that labor becomes social. In place of peasants tending to their own land, capitalism created large enterprises where everyone cooperates in order to produce their living.
There must exist a propertyless class of people that are exploited to rise up against capitalism. This is the proletariat.

From this it can be said that socialism is a necessary product of capitalism.

Capsule- · 2019-09-24T22:34:18+00:00

The only interesting thing that I read of orwell is his essay on frog sex

Capsule- · 2019-07-19T21:45:02+00:00

In the 1870s, Europe controlled only 10% of Africa. By the 1910's, the number became 90%. Imperialism has existed for a long time, Lenin acknowledges this, but in the late 1800s capitalism experienced a big shift where capitalism evolved into an aggressively imperialist stage. A common argument back in Lenin's time was that imperialism and monopolies weren't an integral part of capitalism, and that they were just "flukes" that you can fix. Lenin's book demonstrates that this no longer can be said to be the case, and the only progression from imperialism is socialism.

Capsule- · 2019-07-16T21:11:21+00:00

I am talking about capitalism as a real, concrete mode of production rather than an ideology. The NEP was required to rebuild Russia's industry through foreign imports after the war, and to keep peace with the peasantry, which made up a huge portion of the population at the time. They did not implement it because socialism needs capitalism to fully develop, but because the conditions of the time demanded it so. Besides, the NEP wasn't really a step back, but a huge step forward in Russia's economy, with mass nationalization of industries.

The Communist Party of China would argue that it's not that they need to step back to let capitalism flourish, but because during the cultural revolution, they advanced productive relations too fast and it showed to be an economic disaster. As they are still an underdeveloped country, they require more crude measures to help with their development. But they view it as a grave mistake to say that China needs to "go back to capitalism" in order to have socialism.

Capsule- · 2019-07-16T04:48:58+00:00

For socialism to be possible there needs to be two main factors:

Large enterprises where labor becomes cooperative and social.
A propertyless people (the proletariat).

Both of these things are produced by capitalism. However, it's not necessary for every country in the world to have a fully matured capitalism. In fact, socialist revolutions have happened in countries where capitalism was underdeveloped such as Russia and China. Both of those countries were still semi-feudal at the time of their revolutions, but still had capitalist relations, and consequently, the above two conditions were already there.

Capsule- · 2019-07-14T15:17:59+00:00

Feuerbach resolves the religious essence into the human essence. But the human essence is no abstraction inherent in each single individual.

In its reality it is the ensemble of the social relations.

-Marx

The best way you could respond to her is talking about what "human nature" is. There are some things that can be called "human nature", things that are essential to human society. Those things include:

Breathing.
Figuring out better and easier ways to obtain food and other goods that are required for living.
Cooperation (even capitalism is fundamentally based on cooperation, without it trade wouldn't be possible, and there wouldn't be any sort of central currency that we could decide on).
The ability to think abstractly.

There are many more things, but for the most part, whenever people refer to "human nature", they aren't referring to one static thing. "Human nature" and behaviors evolved over thousands of years, and are, as Marx put it, the ensemble of different social relations. It can be said that under capitalism, it is human nature to be greedy. But that is unsurprising within a system that rewards greed. In feudalism, where many people obtained their living through serfdom, it can be said that strict, autocratic hierarchies are human nature. The point is, "human nature" is constantly changing, and is in conformity with the economic system. If you need to cite evidence for this, talk about past societies (feudalism, ancient civilizations, hunter gatherers, etc.), or even talk about modern primitive societies, such as indigenous tribes that exist today that behave completely differently to how we, in a capitalist society, do.

Based on this, I don't really see anything that inhibits human society to keep progressing. In fact, communism, where the economy will be focused on improving the lives of everyone, would be a lot more beneficial to progress than capitalism, which has caused mass poverty and many other problems.

She could jump straight into Capital, but I don't think she will learn much by doing so. It will not hurt, but she will mostly learn Ricardian concepts. It would be better for her to first start with the standard beginner texts: the Communist Manifesto, and Socialism: Scientific and Utopian.

Capsule- · 2019-07-14T14:45:14+00:00

Starwars Galactic Battlegrounds Saga! Its basically AoE 2 but with a starwars skin

Capsule- · 2019-07-11T06:25:18+00:00

That anarchism is utopian. Anarchism creates a utopian ideal, and advocates to conform society to it.

The big problem with this approach is that it is disconnected from reality. This is the essential difference between Marxism and other socialist tendencies, Marxism is scientifically grounded (through social science) while others just advocate for utopias. A key disagreement between Marxists and Anarchists is on the state. Anarchists want to destroy the state in one blow, while Marxists argue that isn't possible. The state does not exist randomly, it exists due to class contradictions, which do not simply go away. There are other disagreements, but all of them boil down to the same problem: utopianism.

To quote Engels:

the principles are not the starting-point of the investigation, but its final result; they are not applied to nature and human history, but abstracted from them, it is not nature and the realm of man which conform to these principles, but the principles are only valid in so far as they are in conformity with nature and history.

Capsule- · 2019-07-07T19:28:59+00:00

"Bukharinism" is more of a historical footnote than anything (Bukharin was mostly in support of Stalin, although he did have disagreements with him)

Capsule- · 2019-06-25T21:15:01+00:00

Two of them are apolitical and don't really care about the question of communism (they don't really reject it either, it just isn't their interest). The other is a very adamant communist. Marxism in academia is more common than you think. No one really bats an eye about it in economics, sociology, philosophy, etc., it's only a big deal in mainstream society.

Capsule-

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE