Re: Dissipating Thieveslark1979October 12 2007, 22:53:27 UTC
I cant speak for Carson, he/she can no doubt answer for themselves, but I will response to "like all socialists", this is a conceited and gross generalisation, like capitalists or political liberals, conservatives or others, there is a diversity and disparity of opinions within socialist ranks and it is not befitting to any honest debate to pretend otherwise to a homogenous and singular opposition.
I wont pretend to be familiar with the terminology or language you're using, I'm not sure what intertemporal means or what statithinkers are, however I can assure you that historical understanding and appreciation is indeed a socialist trait, Marx's entire philosophy was based upon a believe that history was playing out with discernable trends or patterns, the knowledge of which can permit predictions or suppositions about the future, it was a current among scientific thinkers of his day which has been rightly critiqued by contemporary scientific philosophers such as Popper.
None the less he had a clear idea about how the industry of yesterday influenced the conditions of today, good criticism of his ideas, like those of Weber, who posited that it was not industrialism, ie means of production, which produced cultural norms but the norms, ie frugality, saving, calvinist ethics, which produced industrialism have also been internalised by socialist thinkers.
Far from being socialists who are ignorant of past and future it is capitalists who exhibit such a mindset in supposing that everyone who could find employment in a mass producing industrial society can do so in a downsized, post-industrial society, that without regard for present conditions the values of Calvinism are prennial. Similarly it is the mindset of a consumer society that people use, abuse and consume immediately, live for the short term and make no provision or preparation for tommorrow.
I would, as a socialist, dispute that everywhere and always all property and power has been acquired justly and transfered justly, such as the personal industry of yesterday translating into the investment and ownership pattern of today and likely further accumulation, investment and return of tommorrow, this is no doubt the case in some, possibly even most instances, but it is not something which can be generalised to every and all instances.
It is indeed fortune if an individual or family have worked and saved hard in order to save and embark upon some private enterprise but it doesnt happen any longer at the commanding heights of industry and commerce, great trusts, monopolies and corporations have emerged, clear economic facts such as economies of scale, barriers to entry and exit costs, have secured their positions and their own history has generally been one of emerging from a minor collaboration of business and legal interests under the protection or with assistance from the state.
These same private institutions have pretty much restricted individual proprietorship in ways that socialists could only dream of, restricting the individual entreprenour or hard working employee to personal and family property and possessions and pretty much on the whole excluding individuals from property in fields, factories and workshops, ie the main sources of generating future wealth other than by saving from your personal labours.
Re: Dissipating ThievesfareOctober 15 2007, 00:23:07 UTC
Like all socialists, you obviously don't understand the intertemporal relationship between past and previous work. One day's capital is the fruit of previous days' labor. Denying the property of capital owners is the same as denying the property of workers over the fruits of their labor.
Socialists have no understanding of causation and the dynamics of creation. At best they look at the kinematics and draw absurd conclusions, like Marx did.
Free marketeers of course object to illegitimate property - sticking it to political power is the one theme of free marketeers. Socialists object to legitimate property as well as to all property, and want to replace it with totalitarian political power.
Your whole rant does not make any logical sense. It is an accumulation of emotionally connected words in typical association/dissociation patterns.
Re: Dissipating Thieveslark1979October 15 2007, 00:38:06 UTC
I just dont see how you could make up that response from what I posted, I suggest that you go back and read what I wrote, perhaps do without the very emotional charge which you accuse me of exhibiting.
As I said not every socialist has opposed proprietorship carte blanche, in fact in the main socialists have only found it objectionable in so far as it the preserve of the privileged few and grants unwarranted power over others, Robert Owen and other early socialists in Britain were successful business men, Charles Fourier in France appealed in the press for the sponsorship of business persons with assurances that the norms and practices proposed by him would maximise returns on investment and maximise productivity.
I can guarantee you that there is no misunderstanding among socialists as to the sources of wealth and proprietorship, it is rather a utopian myth of free marketeers, an emotionally driven and rewarding fantasy no less, that all proprietorship stems from the wisely saved and spent earnings of individuals acquired through hard graft, clean living and good fortune.
In many instances, if not all, it is instead a case of nepotism, dynasty and inherited privilege, if for no reason other than a that luck, hardwork or good fortune alone are inadequate and insufficient to garnering the correct contacts, connections and social capital to maximise returns on investment and allow your business to remain competitive.
In fact I would be interested to see if the first families, corporations or other monopoly powers, price makers and market leaders would stand up to a geneological study of the sources of their wealth and power given the criteria you use yourself for determining legitimate and illegitimate property.
Just to be very clear once more, if property had no attendent power, responsibility and economic externalities it would be a mute point, obviously there are different sorts of property and it is a matter of degree, whether or not my neighbour owns a car doesnt not concern me, whether or not my neighbours owns my home or effectively owns me through the medium of my earnings does. That kind of power is the same power which free marketeers rightly have criticised when in the hands of government or organised groups.
Personal connections are a fact of life. Socialism doesn't reduce that fact -- it just makes it happen as part of bureaucratic nepotism based on political robbery, whereas in capitalism it happens as part of entrepreneurial creation of wealth.
Capitalism has its share of rags to riches story. The more capitalist a country, the more of these stories. Plenty of immigrants here become company owners through hard work. Compare the origin great fortunes of a capitalist country to those of a socialist country -- that's production vs predation.
Yeah, not everything is perfect here -- there are fortunes made partially or totally based on robbery. And everywhere that happens, you can see government at work, and the principles of a free market violated "in the name of Society". Socialism.
I wont pretend to be familiar with the terminology or language you're using, I'm not sure what intertemporal means or what statithinkers are, however I can assure you that historical understanding and appreciation is indeed a socialist trait, Marx's entire philosophy was based upon a believe that history was playing out with discernable trends or patterns, the knowledge of which can permit predictions or suppositions about the future, it was a current among scientific thinkers of his day which has been rightly critiqued by contemporary scientific philosophers such as Popper.
None the less he had a clear idea about how the industry of yesterday influenced the conditions of today, good criticism of his ideas, like those of Weber, who posited that it was not industrialism, ie means of production, which produced cultural norms but the norms, ie frugality, saving, calvinist ethics, which produced industrialism have also been internalised by socialist thinkers.
Far from being socialists who are ignorant of past and future it is capitalists who exhibit such a mindset in supposing that everyone who could find employment in a mass producing industrial society can do so in a downsized, post-industrial society, that without regard for present conditions the values of Calvinism are prennial. Similarly it is the mindset of a consumer society that people use, abuse and consume immediately, live for the short term and make no provision or preparation for tommorrow.
I would, as a socialist, dispute that everywhere and always all property and power has been acquired justly and transfered justly, such as the personal industry of yesterday translating into the investment and ownership pattern of today and likely further accumulation, investment and return of tommorrow, this is no doubt the case in some, possibly even most instances, but it is not something which can be generalised to every and all instances.
It is indeed fortune if an individual or family have worked and saved hard in order to save and embark upon some private enterprise but it doesnt happen any longer at the commanding heights of industry and commerce, great trusts, monopolies and corporations have emerged, clear economic facts such as economies of scale, barriers to entry and exit costs, have secured their positions and their own history has generally been one of emerging from a minor collaboration of business and legal interests under the protection or with assistance from the state.
These same private institutions have pretty much restricted individual proprietorship in ways that socialists could only dream of, restricting the individual entreprenour or hard working employee to personal and family property and possessions and pretty much on the whole excluding individuals from property in fields, factories and workshops, ie the main sources of generating future wealth other than by saving from your personal labours.
Reply
Socialists have no understanding of causation and the dynamics of creation. At best they look at the kinematics and draw absurd conclusions, like Marx did.
Free marketeers of course object to illegitimate property - sticking it to political power is the one theme of free marketeers. Socialists object to legitimate property as well as to all property, and want to replace it with totalitarian political power.
Your whole rant does not make any logical sense. It is an accumulation of emotionally connected words in typical association/dissociation patterns.
Reply
As I said not every socialist has opposed proprietorship carte blanche, in fact in the main socialists have only found it objectionable in so far as it the preserve of the privileged few and grants unwarranted power over others, Robert Owen and other early socialists in Britain were successful business men, Charles Fourier in France appealed in the press for the sponsorship of business persons with assurances that the norms and practices proposed by him would maximise returns on investment and maximise productivity.
I can guarantee you that there is no misunderstanding among socialists as to the sources of wealth and proprietorship, it is rather a utopian myth of free marketeers, an emotionally driven and rewarding fantasy no less, that all proprietorship stems from the wisely saved and spent earnings of individuals acquired through hard graft, clean living and good fortune.
In many instances, if not all, it is instead a case of nepotism, dynasty and inherited privilege, if for no reason other than a that luck, hardwork or good fortune alone are inadequate and insufficient to garnering the correct contacts, connections and social capital to maximise returns on investment and allow your business to remain competitive.
In fact I would be interested to see if the first families, corporations or other monopoly powers, price makers and market leaders would stand up to a geneological study of the sources of their wealth and power given the criteria you use yourself for determining legitimate and illegitimate property.
Just to be very clear once more, if property had no attendent power, responsibility and economic externalities it would be a mute point, obviously there are different sorts of property and it is a matter of degree, whether or not my neighbour owns a car doesnt not concern me, whether or not my neighbours owns my home or effectively owns me through the medium of my earnings does. That kind of power is the same power which free marketeers rightly have criticised when in the hands of government or organised groups.
Reply
Personal connections are a fact of life. Socialism doesn't reduce that fact -- it just makes it happen as part of bureaucratic nepotism based on political robbery, whereas in capitalism it happens as part of entrepreneurial creation of wealth.
Capitalism has its share of rags to riches story. The more capitalist a country, the more of these stories. Plenty of immigrants here become company owners through hard work. Compare the origin great fortunes of a capitalist country to those of a socialist country -- that's production vs predation.
Yeah, not everything is perfect here -- there are fortunes made partially or totally based on robbery. And everywhere that happens, you can see government at work, and the principles of a free market violated "in the name of Society". Socialism.
Reply
Leave a comment