[Daktoria]

When you're hanging out with people, there comes a point when the pleasure in the moment ceases to grow (or at least its rate of acceleration is no longer satisfying). You plateau, but you still go along with what's happening because you care about the other people around you. You want them to be happy because you relate with them. You appreciate their experience in reality because you acknowledge mutual appreciation of values.

Sometimes, this means enduring pain. It means "rolling with it". You put up with small things because you BELIEVE (but don't KNOW) the people you care about are enjoying themselves.

Eventually, though, there comes a point when even that's not worth it, so you remove yourself from the picture. Maybe you make an excuse, maybe you lie, maybe you say little to nothing at all, but whatever. The point is there's a frustration level where it's not worth it any longer to endure the pain just so others can be happy. It might even involve ignoring the happiness gain of the group because you're so frustrated you can't even feel or think about how others could be having fun.

This is the fundamental problem with socialism.

Socialism disallows people from trusting not only their internal judgment, but more importantly, their internal perspective. It requires people to admit pleasure and pain in certain circumstances, and if they refuse, they become ostracized (which applies to both democratic and nationalist forms, democracy demands diversity of taste, nationalism demands uniformity of taste).

On top of this, socialism refutes:

1. Positive memories plateauing
2. Negative memories crashing forever

Conventionally speaking, we call this diminished marginal returns. However, for negative memories, diminished marginal returns requires a mental sacrifice. It requires an internal disabling of mind in order to cope, and in turn, this opens the door for further abuse because the more you disable yourself, the more people believe you're tolerant of pain, so you're expected to "roll with it" even more.

In contrast, exploding appears to be unreliable, and some people relish in that unreliability because it's an opportunity to supplant whoever's unreliable.

Ergo, it's no wonder socialism has no problem with crowding out private enterprise. When private enterprise explodes, it appears unreliable, and households become upset on both the labor and consumption sides of the equation. They expect someone to save the day, and that's where government comes in. Government is the supposed in-group with insider information about how the economy really works. It supposedly has the panacea for generating positive, and avoiding negative, memories...

...the problem there being nobody's perfect, and even the government will fail, but when the government fails, the people are expected to roll with it for the good of society.

[Julian]

It seems to me that you have a fairly jaundiced view of socialism. Socialism is not necessarily about creating a hive mentality in which all live a life of service. Socialism might liberate people from wage slavery and provide greater opportunities for leisure. for many people the market society is about long hours, drudgery and following instruction.

[Daktoria]

Wage slavery is a misnomer though. Your life doesn't depend upon money. Your life depends upon nourishment, shelter, and safety.

Capitalists didn't create those necessities. Nature did. If there's anyone to blame, blame your parents who objectified themselves for letting their sex drives get the best of them, don't blame a third party who didn't choose to create you.

Likewise, what I described here was about leisure and how socialists require you to participate in leisure a certain way via redistributive justice. If redistributive justice doesn't fit your utility preference, then a socialist's answer is "tough shit, roll with it, that's life".

Well excuse me, but life doesn't depend upon socialism, so why does life need socialism?

Likewise, the value of ethics is in overcoming "tough shit" not conceding to it, and socialism does not do this universally. It discriminates against personality minorities, obligating them to suffer, acknowledging justification only after the fact of suffering.

It's no wonder then that socialism subscribes and proscribes labor theory of value so heartily.

[ozone]

I try to appreciate the wisdom of your post, Daktoria. But when my masters yells at me for a mistake I did not commit, when he mocks me with invectives that call my mother a 'bitch', when valid absences due to illness are not excused because his greed overpowers his sense of compassion, how can you smile and subscribe to capitalism? There are so many many isolated cases that happened to me that would make every moviegoer cry at my experiences if they are going to be fictionalized but for me such isolated cases are not valid reasons to subvert the capitalist government. But until when can I tolerate them? These is the 'gospel of Marx' and ozone..

[Julian]

Go on..

"How does socialism discriminate against personality minorities"

[Daktoria]

Redistributive justice, by definition, depends upon assuming utility preferences for citizens. It takes resources away from what it believes to be excess, and gives resources towards those who need while proportionally allocating luxury among all.

The problem with that is different personalities have different talents and tastes, talents which are motivated by the pursuit of tastes (people don't invest without believing in consumption). However, redistribution dictates how people should be talented and how people should taste by changing the allocation of resources extracted by talents and interpreted through taste.

The value of consumption is in exploring and relishing your own talents and own taste, not in having some third party you don't know do it for you. Yes, if you personally relate with someone to the point of having trust, then, it's OK, but bureaucrats are not someone everyone relates with personally. Heck, if people related personally with bureaucrats, we wouldn't need to call them bureaucrats. They would just be friends.

A socialist is someone who wants to hook people on strings and play with them like marionettes because they supposedly can't dance well on their own (particularly without consideration as to how people get the chance to dance in the first place).

Well the point of dancing is in expressing yourself (among others). Maybe you're a fool at first, but part of the experience is in learning how to dance appropriately (and relating with others, bureaucrats who prevent that because their authority comes from force, not trust).

[Julian]

I don't see a problem with that.

elected representative aren't elected to be people's friends

they are elected to undertake routine administration on behalf of a community

afterall if some people are enjoying advantages which are widely regarded as unfair - why should the community not seek to level the pitch a little

--

so the poor have a few underpaid beaurocrats working on their behalf.

don't the privaleged tend to have a rather larger army of bankers, private security, accountants, lawyers, police, and politicians protecting their accumulated wealth.



most people get rich by being part of a community. they can't turn off the network of obligation when they've reached the top

[Daktoria]

Julian, you're making it sound like equality is just a disguise for power politics, not a means toward liberty.

Frankly, if that's the case, then I don't see a difference between socialists leveling the playing field and someone killing every socialist in existence. It's like you're admitting to the war of all against all, and provoking people into attacking you only to hide behind the rule of law.

You also haven't explained where societal obligation comes from.

[Julian]

Are we talking about power politics. or are we talking about the practical realities of living in a community.

we all live in communities and we all share the same space whether we are by inclination libertarian or socialist. if you regularly have traffic stop while you cross the road, or ask others to collect your garbage, or buy your food rather than produce it - I think you have effectively entered into a contract which goes beyond the immediate money exchange ?

even rugged individualist in remote frams have a boundary to their land which they feel ought not be crossed without permission. if you cross that well they maybe they have got a gun. but if they haven't they will inevitably quote their rights to land. rights owed to them by a community they profess to be apart from.

[Daktoria]

Power politics and pragmatism are the same. Pragmatism is a subjective construct, so the only way you can encourage other people to act practically is via force.

Defining the bounds of an implicit contract is likewise subjective.

[Vera Politica]

Redistributive justice, by definition, depends upon assuming utility preferences for citizens.

This points to a fundamental misunderstanding of socialism -- at least with Marxian socialism. Marxian socialism is certainly not about redistributive justice since, in point of fact, it is not about redistribution at all. Moreover, Marxian socialists make no claims to justice, fairness, or anything of the sort.

[Daktoria]

You're admitting then that socialism is a power politics ploy?

In that case, there wouldn't be anything wrong with exterminating socialists. Not only that, but capitalist commodification of labor wouldn't make sense because socialists would have already objectified themselves.

Honestly, it sounds like socialism is a pathology addicted to history. Capitalists didn't create the surplus labor supply. Your ancestors created the surplus labor supply out of bored hedonism.

If you live in suffering circumstances, then you know better than to drag more people into your world.

[Rei Murasame]

You need to actually demonstrate where you are getting this idea from:

Capitalists didn't create the surplus labor supply. Your ancestors created the surplus labor supply out of bored hedonism.

You think that the population boom is a product of horny people, really?

[Chill]

The theory of socialism and communism is not that easy, Daktoria.

So I decide to never think of it...from the point I couldn't figure out whether there was a thing called 'exploitation of surplus value'.

[Aidand]

Socialism disallows people from trusting not only their internal judgment, but more importantly, their internal perspective. It requires people to admit pleasure and pain in certain circumstances, and if they refuse, they become ostracized

I would argue that the same is true of a functioning capitalist society, since if you don't show or admit your preferences you will never be able to buy the things or interact with the people you want. Then you would be a very unhappy person so a disciplining and negative force exists as it might in socialism.
The difference being in capitalism that through the medium of commodities you can avoid the empathic and caring situation your describe above and become locked in systems of exploitation that certainly deprive people of certain minority preferences such as communities in the way of industrial developments.

The value of consumption is in exploring and relishing your own talents and own taste, not in having some third party you don't know do it for you

Following from above when everyone does this some consumers will definitely disadvantage and restrict other communities. Good examples today are communities exploited by corporations or workers and entire communities locked in poverty by consumer habits today.
Moreover the ghost of a third party never stops haunting consumption unless it is just needs based. You cannot just use that to explain 'tastes' as you put. Families and communities social values influence it just as the influence other behavior. Again insular communities could lose empathy for those who aren't their friends, family, community etc. Oryour bored friends might self select into insular groups that again lack out group empathy. This seems like a pathway to restricting or injuring others.Granted thats much more hypothetical than the first point though

I always saw socialism and social democracy trying to avoid these through deliberative(local and national) democratic governments regulating inequality and the economy rather than a bunch of bureacrats deciding things. That would certainly and has been an awful way to run things.

[Daktoria]

You think that the population boom is a product of horny people, really?

How else are people born? Capitalists aren't matchmakers who force people to mate at the point of a gun.

The only alternative to emphasizing birth rates is emphasizing expanding lifespans, but isn't living a longer life defended from disease supposedly a good thing?

The theory of socialism and communism is not that easy, Daktoria.

So I decide to never think of it...from the point I couldn't figure out whether there was a thing called 'exploitation of surplus value'.

It goes deeper than official "socialism". The mere idea of egalitarian (or redistributive) communitarianism in general goes back to the dawn of society where many become jealous of few.

That said, yea, I'd like to agree never thinking about it is the best thing to do except when you ignore it, people bombard you with criticism as if you're a selfish jerk for not sharing what you worked hard to achieve (despite how they refuse to share what they have themselves).

Leveling is the worst form of covert aggression. It's as if the only way you can live your life enjoyably is if you hide your achievements or consume them faster than you can hide them.

I would argue that the same is true of a functioning capitalist society, since if you don't show or admit your preferences you will never be able to buy the things or interact with the people you want. Then you would be a very unhappy person so a disciplining and negative force exists as it might in socialism.
The difference being in capitalism that through the medium of commodities you can avoid the empathic and caring situation your describe above and become locked in systems of exploitation that certainly deprive people of certain minority preferences such as communities in the way of industrial developments.

Well come on, that means people should be excused from communicating themselves.

People aren't mind readers.

Following from above when everyone does this some consumers will definitely disadvantage and restrict other communities. Good examples today are communities exploited by corporations or workers and entire communities locked in poverty by consumer habits today.

How did you come to this conclusion? You pursuing your utility preference might compete with me pursuing my utility preference, but neither of us has the right to tell the other not to compete. If we get to know each other, we could cooperate, but cooperation enforced by a threat of consumer habits isn't valuable. It relegates us to robots who supposedly don't have self-control, and without that, the fulfillment of our utility preferences becomes meaningless. Robots are not an ends unto themselves.

Moreover the ghost of a third party never stops haunting consumption unless it is just needs based. You cannot just use that to explain 'tastes' as you put. Families and communities social values influence it just as the influence other behavior. Again insular communities could lose empathy for those who aren't their friends, family, community etc. Oryour bored friends might self select into insular groups that again lack out group empathy. This seems like a pathway to restricting or injuring others.Granted thats much more hypothetical than the first point though

Empathy comes about from realizing mutual tastes, so I'm not sure how you came to this conclusion either. This includes necessities since various necessities and paths to acquiring necessities exist.

That said, there's a difference between respecting someone and liking someone. Just because you disagree with others' tastes doesn't mean you can't acknowledge the self in others. Tastes are subjective. You're a subject, I'm a subject. That's good enough to realize equity.

[Vera Politica]

You're admitting then that socialism is a power politics ploy?

In that case, there wouldn't be anything wrong with exterminating socialists. Not only that, but capitalist commodification of labor wouldn't make sense because socialists would have already objectified themselves.

Wha!?

Honestly, it sounds like socialism is a pathology addicted to history. Capitalists didn't create the surplus labor supply. Your ancestors created the surplus labor supply out of bored hedonism.

*looks left* *looks right*

Here is what I said: Marxian socialism is not concerned with redistributive justice for two reasons:
(1) It does not advocate redistribution as an end
(2) It is not concerned with ethico-legal concepts, like justice.

No, it does not follow that socialism is a power ploy. No it does not follow that it is alright to exterminate socialists. No, socilaists have not objectified themselves (what does this even mean?). And finally, what does sex craved ancestors have to do with what I said?

[Daktoria]

If socialists aren't concerned with justice, then the only remaining motive for advocating their policy is power.

That said, power is a natural premise because power does not require interpretation. It comes directly from physical force. Entities which are resigned to responding to physical force are objects, not subjects.

Therefore, there would be no difference between someone taking a pickaxe to a rock and taking a pickaxe to the skull of a socialist.

As for sex craved ancestry, if it wasn't for that, you wouldn't have a surplus labor supply for those evil capitalists to supposedly exploit.

[Vera Politica]

If socialists aren't concerned with justice, then the only remaining motive for advocating their policy is power.

Not quite -- unfortunately this confusion follows only if one supposes a false dichotomy.
Marxian socialists do not advance socialism for ethico-legal reasons (safe for analytical marxists) -- this would be fallacious, given Marxian analysis. Instead, Marxists can advocate for socialism as the only rational alternative to the inevitable barbarism that follows from capitalism (or that will follow from capitalism). Remember, for Marxists the internal contradictions of capitalism cannot be mitigated through state intervention and, so, it will inevitably be "crushed under its own weight" so to speak. Marxian socialists then present the situation like this: socialism or barbarism -- that is the peril of Western civilization. Socialism, then, is advanced not because it is more just or ethical or whatever. It is advanced because it is rational -- that is, it is advanced in order to save civilization.

[Daktoria]

That seems very contradictory because rational choice depends upon methodological individualism which disallows for class consciousness. Even materially speaking, rational thought can only take place within neurological boundaries, yet there's not necessarily a cybernetic network directly connecting all minds together (and even then, cybernetics would have to be interpreted by minds connected to the network).

Also, the difference between socialism and barbarism (when both are premised upon power) is a subjective value judgment. However, if the proletariat becomes commodified, then it won't be possible for the proletariat to tell the difference.

The idea of objects becoming conscious doesn't make sense because it is consciousness which distinguishes between self-forming actors versus reactive agents. That is consciousness is the dividing factor between "who" versus "what".

Alternatively, allowing "what" to become "who" question begs rational thought in general because it becomes impossible to distinguish among rationality versus emotionality. On the other hand, if there's no difference between rationality versus emotionality, then the very connection between permanent revolution and the proletariat would be unnecessary because nature would have already been in the course of permanent revolution since the beginning of time (considering that emotionality is a product of metabolism, ergo biology, chemistry, and physics which exist independently of cognitive discovery).