Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Laika

Regulars
  • Posts

    51
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Laika

  1. I'll probably have to take your advice in the long-run. I got Capitalism: the unknown ideal through the post today and started flicking through the introduction.
  2. That wasn't what I was asking in the OP but... *shrugs* If you want to criticise North Korea, you could do worse than the video below. I watched the film "Camp 14: Total Control Zone" that its talking about. its very slow and quiet and it doesn't need to make alot of noise to have an effect. I managed to sit through it but it was at the end when Shin said he wanted to go back to the Camp because it was his home that I burst into tears. that just hit me hard. Shin has changed his story, but its naive to expect pure truth to come out of nation where you have to lie to survive.
  3. Couldn't a Socialist say the same about the government running up the national debt because the government has the ability to print its own money? and that it is the fault of banks for limiting the governments borrowing capacity because they lack imagination and confidence in the government? Given that the purpose of economics is to allocate resources efficiently amongst competing (and potentially infinite) wants, I find the idea that we should dismiss scarcity and physical limits as dangerously close to saying economics is a redundant discipline. we may be able to achieve abundance within the current century with scientific and technological developments, but we aren't there yet and we'd only be able to achieve that abundance on the basis of using scarce resources efficiently.
  4. I'm probably still working on the Labour Theory of Value here, that the "utility" of the natural resources is not included in the exchange value/price as a commodity. As commodities, they are working within the short-term expectations and fluctuations of market demand and supply based on what is profitable. the profitability of market transactions accounts for the present day value of continuing to deplete or degrade resources but not the future value of maintaining resources. By the time market prices reflect the reduced supply, the scarcity is already real (and so would be its effects on the world economy and people). I'm not going to dispute that there are alternatives in the long-run, such as depletion of fresh water supplies can make de-desalinisation commercially viable, or depletion of mineral resources means that space exploration and asteroid mining becomes commercially viable. However, these are still massive investments in creating alternative supply of basic resources. In the short-run however, the physical limited nature of resources is real and is dependent on the speed of technological change. More or less agreed on that. simply because someone chooses their own dictator does not make them free. Consumers are only sovereign in practice to the degree to which they have decision making power within the marketplace. If corporations are strong enough to force consumers hand by limiting competition or product choice, or can use advertising and branding to manipulate consumers into buying a product for reasons other than the product itself (e.g. Ronald McDonald looks very friendly- so I think I will let my kids eat at McDonalds because he reflects the brand rather than whats in the hamburger, or kids going "I want to be like Tony the Tiger, so I'm going to bully my parents into getting me frosties. they're great!".) the manipulation is more obvious with children because they are less good at rationalising it. its also more visible when children throw a tantrum in the supermarket isle because there parents aren't buying them exactly what they want. its a question of whether consumers are actually making rational decisions or being manipulated by companies into economic arrangements that serve the corporations by getting customers to identify with the company. giving the prevalence of sex in advertising and less than subtle references to how buying this product wil make you more attractive, the companies aren't selling a product but a self-image. e.g. "you're not buying a red sports car- you're buying a chic magnet to cover-up your performance anxiety". I'm not saying this is normal for capitalism, just that this is dangerous because it conditions people to be responsive to emotionally-loaded messages and more susceptible to the messages of demagogues, particularly if it appeals to our unconscious drives and conflicts by-passing the conscious part of our brain. The size of a company is a threat in that market power of existing companies is a barrier to entry to competitors, particularly if they cut prices to put them out of business. If there isn't the competition within the marketplace- its the companies who have the power, and they get to write the rule book with the government. the people become spectators to politics as elections are reduced to corporate branding exercises in a two (or maybe three) party system because the methods of manipulation in the marketplace get exported into politics.
  5. I haven't heard someone make that argument before. Do you think that thinking in terms of an obligation to "future generations" or to the "earth" is more about asserting common property? [i.e. humanity owns the earth collectively including future generations/ the earth is a single ecological system and can only be common property, etc] I'd just welcome some more on that point as I'm not familiar with that point of view.
  6. I was more thinking of how resources such as fresh water, fish stocks, etc are being used at unsustainable rates as a form of mis-allocation of resources (in that they are being depleted and so undervalued in the long-term). Climate Change would also be a mis-allocation of resources if you framed it in terms of externalities/costs external to market transactions affecting third parties. I think people have tried to monetise it through carbon trading but I'm not sure how effective its been. I'd say alot of the irrational expectation exist because of the power of the media to use advertising as a form of propaganda. So the media promotes consumption as a value and it can be just as damaging to reason as political propaganda by appealing to peoples emotions for the "feel good" factor (at least the accumulation of it is a problem). I don't really have a specific use of the term but its one I've heard used by people on the right more. Marxists use the term "monopoly capitalism" to refer to companies being large enough to have market power over prices, wages, output, etc and therefore the ability to increase profits. I'm sort of using the term interchangably, but I think economic models would say all companies have some degree of market power in real life situations due to product differentiation, branding etc. If I'm trying to be more specific, I think its that the sheer volume of output and revenue can be centralised into a lever of control that can then introduce elements of bureaucratic economic planning within a company and increase profits than would happen under a more competitive scenario. Its that the planned nature of corporations means they can use their market power to become vehicles for enriching executives rather than working for consumers. its also not good because it lays the basis for state-corporate co-operation which weakens competition and autonomy further.
  7. I could be wrong, but I think you're talking about people using a brain-computer interface and living in a matrix of some kind? I would have thought that sharing everyone's thoughts, feelings into a digital public space is a recipe for socialism as uploading everything onto a computer makes privacy and private ownership of our own consciousness a little redundant in effect. It creates a way for "people" to hack one another and I find it hard to see how we could sustain the sense of self or autonomy in that kind of scenario. The internet has already shown the dangers for privacy and intellectual property by making things alot easier to share and how most of the content gets centralised through certain sites like Google, Facebook, YouTube, etc. pluging into a virtual network to get our emotions manipulated and be turned into addicts may not be conducive to freedom either. would we really want to be free if we can just push a button to get our next high? so not sure. interesting thought though. The authorities haven't made having an imagination a thought crime yet dude. So keep dreaming. its the first step to fight the system! I think its called the internet, but I must investigate some kitten videos to be sure. most of the post-apocalyptic films we have nowadays would seem to suggest we'd go back to barter as a form of capitalism after a nuclear war (assuming there's anything left), like using bottlecaps as currency in Fallout. I guess it makes sense as long as well still have a division of labour and have to trade with one another.
  8. Do you think that Capitalism will collapse by the end of the current century? Its becoming more obvious that there are major problems with how resources are allocated and used in the world economy. A "collapse", if it happened, would necessarily be global because of how globalisation has interconnected our economic and political destinies. I realise you could argue it either way- that it is the fault of capitalism, or that it is the by-product of distortions of "crony capitalism" and "corporate capitalism" in free, competitive markets, and that such a collapse would also hurt the non-capitalist countries (debatably, China and North Korea). It is however true that Capitalism can only collapse if people consciously decide to bring it down, whether by social revolution or by breaking the social contract and deciding its better to go our separate ways in anarchy or civil war. the weakening of free institutions, through apathy and cynicism from below, and creeping authoritarianism from above, is not a good sign. here's a few reasons why I think Capitalism may collapse. Climate Change and Environmental Problems: Ultimately, "free" societies are a privilege and a luxury of economies that have attained a sufficiently high level of production that they no longer need to use direct coercion, but can use voluntary exchanges within the market instead. Environmental Problems threaten to bring about an era of food and water insecurity (and if you include peak oil, energy insecurity) and this is not likely to be conducive to political stability at all. Ultimately, this is a major mis-allocation of resources as short-term profits take precedence over the long-term sustainability of maintaining resources and a failure to invest or innovate by new technologies and organisational structures that could address these problems. Consumerism: the irrational nature of expectations in the market means that people and institutions have become "addicted" to growth and consumption. This makes society less adaptable and people more irritable to falls in living standards. So the unrealistic expectations (perhaps "entitlement" if you want to call it that) make political extremism and instability more likely as people value instant gratification over the long-term stability of free institutions. Income Inequality and Corporate Capitalism: Whilst a certain level of income inequality may be healthy, the problem is that its got out of control. It doesn't reflect competition in the marketplace, but the concentration of economic power in the hands of the big banks and large corporations to "reallocate" resources to the wealthy. This is bad news because, it is the Middle Class which provides an economic basis for stability in developed countries. If the middle class begins to crumble, people no longer have an economic incentive to be part of the system. This is particularly true of young people, where opportunities to benefit from capitalism are getting harder and harder to find as social mobility gets lower. The failure of Democracy: the economic power and influence of large corporations means they are able to make democratic governments serve their interests, and hence are resistant to attempts at reform (whether they come from the left or the right). The Media: not sure where to start, but you have the combination of a highly concentrated media ownership with TV, newspapers, etc as sources of information, combined with the disruptive effects of the internet which has, by turning clicks, shares and views into the currency of social media, helped create an environment in which spreading "fake news", sensationalist stories, along with conspiracy theories into a major commercial enterprise. the incentives are there for people who want to make money, and they are rewarded for manipulating the public. Whether its a question of free economic and political institution, having people being badly informed and making less than rational decisions, is highly corrosive. On top of this, is a heavy dose of cultural pessimism that either reflects or perpetuates social decline and serves elites by getting people to stop believing that change is possible. The War on Terror and Religious Resurgence: I'm throwing this one in because I tend to think Capitalism can only work as a secular set of institutions, in which a person's religious beliefs are "private" and not a public/political concern. Both Christian and Islamic Fundamentalism have been on the rise for several decades, and the threat of Islamic Terrorism has been used to strengthen the hand of the state to invade people's lives and other countries (often only making the problem worse). the retreat of secularism isn't very good for capitalism because economic growth relies on the advance of Science, and if science and reason come under attack- capitalism will follow. I could probably think of others, but I think we'll just go with those ones for starters. Any Thoughts?
  9. The problem with Chernobyl wasn't necessarily that it was caused by a centrally planned economy. (The accident happened because the executives were testing the plants safety and were trying to make the reactor safer.. ROFL). (Politically at least), the biggest problem was the secrecy over the accident, as the Soviets only announced that there had been a nuclear accident after the Scandinavian countries started screaming "why is there a big radioactive cloud coming over us? what the **** are you doing Russia? we're telling!" [This would be funny if it didn't involve dangerous levels of radiation: http://sverigesradio.se/sida/artikel.aspx?programid=2054&artikel=4468603 ] The accident happened in late April, and the government let the May Day parades go ahead in Kiev, Ukraine even though everyone was celebrating under a radioactive cloud. They didn't warn their own people and this added momentum to the policy of Glasnost/Openness to make the Soviet system more accountable because it became clear that the government couldn't be trusted with their own peoples safety to the point that part of Ukraine is still uninhabitable in the exclusion zone. Although I don't think the government should regulate the power industry, this individual is no mind reader. I appreciate that, while many regulations do"stifle growth and profit," they are not necessarily created with that in mind. Indeed, some accomplish what industry engineering standards, watchdog groups, or other non-government efforts would and should otherwise accomplish. That said, let's accept his challenge for a moment and look at another quote: Fruits and vegetables from the contaminated areas were sold feely [sic] at Moscow markets. In fact, that summer there was quite an incredible abundance of produce and the prices were low. The levels of radiation in produce from certain areas were very high. Some of our friends who used Geiger counters to check produce at Moscow Central Market had the counters confiscated then and there. Soviet Russia and the EPA are both examples -- the one more consistent than the other -- of central planning. Chernobyl and its aftermath happened in a centrally planned economy. The above instance shows just how well that "EPA for everything" worked, at least to achieve the goal of the protection of individual rights. (I am not by any means asserting that that was the goal, but it's the most benevolent interpretation I can muster of the notion that we "need" the EPA.) I won't, without further evidence, attribute hatred of the individual to the author of the first quote. However, I will say that facts alone are insufficient to settle the implicit question he raises, which is, "Should we have central planning?" For starters, I bet if I made a painstaking case -- which I am not, here -- that Chernobyl is exactly what happens under central planning, many people would shrug it off as an anomaly or even dismiss my factual statements as "propaganda." And many would, sadly, dismiss out of hand the idea that the purpose of the government is to protect individual rights. (Other possibilities exist: Some of these people might be persuaded to change their minds about these objections, but only with much more effort. Also, I could make such a poor case for the idea that Chernobyl exemplifies how "well" totalitarian regimes respect individuals that I'd rightly be dismissed.) The bottom line is that, when one wants to pitch an intellectual argument, he must set limits that account for some potential audience members being too far away from his position to engage -- anytime soon (because of fundamental differences, despite a basic level of intellectual honesty) or at all (because of a lack of intellectual honesty or for other reasons). The fact that there are people who are unreachable by rational argument in no way lessens the value of rational argument -- when directed at the right audience. Never let their seeming ubiquity demoralize you: They are unwittingly helping you with the task of prioritizing your time by honing in on the audience one can most profitably engage with. I do not accuse the author of the first quote of being the type of person I am discussing, but his remark caused me to think of the kind of reaction I might get if I engaged him personally about it, and of past reactions I have observed from others after similar conversations. Those reactions are more useful that I once thought. -- CAV Link to Original If you want a Soviet Environmental Disaster directly related to Centralised Planning, you could bring up the Aral Sea. In trying to improve the productivity of agricultural lands in the area, the Soviets irrigated the sea to the point where it dried up. they went beyond the limits of the sea to actually replenish itself. Its part of the logic of centralised planning in communist systems to try and play god with nature and it didn't work. the picture below from Wikipedia shows the Aral sea from 1989 to 2014. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aral_Sea
  10. Yeah, the New Left has done really well. Although I wouldn't call it revolutionary, there is definitely a lot of "cultural Marxism" in the US and the UK at the moment and they do pose a threat to free speech, free press, etc. At least with the "Old Left" based on class issues, you knew what you were getting and could try to hold them to account for what happened in the USSR. The New Left is very slippery- they say they don't believe in Stalin or the USSR and won't accept being held accountable for what happened there, but then proceed to use methods to pressure people similar to Mao in the Cultural Revolution to engineer egalitarian norms to fight racism, sexism, homophobia, etc. (criticism and self-criticism of "politically incorrect" behaviour, public humiliation, treating people's thoughts and feelings as "political" rather than private/personal, etc). its nowhere near as coercive or violent, but certainly its bad for a free society if it wants to stay that way. The worst thing is perhaps from the far lefts point of view, there isn't that much evidence it even works as your just getting people to conform rather than actually change. so it doesn't bring us any closer to the "new man" or "new woman" of a socialist society even if it were desirable. calling someone a fascist, racist, etc doesn't encourage them to change at all- it just humiliates people, silences them and stifles debate. it doesn't change people's opinions (which appear to be very resistant to change as it is).
  11. I will take a look at it. I've got The Virtue of Selfishness and Capitalism:An Unknown ideal coming through the post, and I'll try to get through them first. I'm ok with what you said on Capitalism and Protestantism. I don't have any issue with that. I can't argue with you on whether there was any risk of Marxism gaining followers in the US as it was very limited. Amongst intellectuals, it may be a different story as with the John Reed Clubs in the 1930's: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Reed_Clubs The Great Depression was really important for that and the CPUSA's exploitation of tensions over jim crowe and civil rights amongst African Americans gave it a foothold amongst black radicals for maybe two or three decades. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Communist_Party_USA_and_African_Americans This was probably the high point of Americans love affair with Communism as after the 1940's and 50's (especially the McCarthy era) it just never recovered. I'm not 100% sure but the influence of Marxism in the New Left in the 60's and 70's may have been confined to University Campuses. it was only in the 20's and 30's that Marxism ever got something resembling "popular" appeal or intellectual respecctability in the US and this is still small compared to the appeal of Socialism in the late 19th and early 20th century America (which was never big to begin with).
  12. sadly, I've only ever seen it hinted at because Marxists suggested "Mechanistic Materialism" (i.e. philosophical ideas behind Newtonian mechanics) is a "Capitalist" ideology of science. They never explicitly suggested "why" but that was my best guess for it. Mostly the material will come from Engels Anti-During, Dialectics of Nature and Lenin's Materialism and Empiro-criticism but there may be a marxist historian of science somewhere who did state the argument. After googling a footnote in one of my books, (referring to S F Mason's "Science and its History: Main currents of Scientific Thought" (1953) ) I did find a reference to something which could be useful by a S F Mason PHD on the scientific revolution and the protestant reformation. https://philpapers.org/rec/PHDTSR http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00033795300200033 http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00033795300200103 British Marxist Historians of Science may be a rarity, but here's a list of names that may be worth looking into: The historians of science whose work was most directly influenced in Britain were J. G. Crowther, a journalist and free-lance writer; Hyman Levy, a physicist; Joseph Needham, a chemical embryologist who became the historian of a massive work on Science and Civilization in Ancient China; and a polymath crystallographer, J. D. Bernal, who essayed broadly on the history of science, especially in his multi-volume Science in History. There were others, but I would say that the direct effect on historical writing (pace Needham) was not very great. It certainly did not influence the teaching of the history of science in the major British universities in the ensuing decades. Benjamin Farrington wrote interestingly on Francis Bacon, but the only noteworthy young historian of science in Great Britain, S. F. Mason, author of Main Currents of Scientific Thought, had to return to chemistry because he could not find work as a historian of science. http://www.human-nature.com/rmyoung/papers/pap104h.html There is a really good PDF file (below) which covers the problems that came up trying to reconcile dialectical materialism with physics, and whilst that doesn't deal with the relationship between atomism and capitalism, you'll get an idea of how controversial and difficult the subject was. If they couldn't fit general relativity and quantum mechanics into marxism, its legitimacy would collapse as a scientific theory. https://arxiv.org/pdf/1204.1625.pdf There aren't many books in English on the subject, but the best one I've found is "Einstein and Soviet Ideology" by Alexander Vucinich. its probably the best (and maybe the only) book in the English language that does the controversies in Soviet physics justice. researchers don't appear to have been that interested in it, but there could be a wealth of archive material kicking around Moscow somewhere. people haven't translated it into english. I managed to get a copy for about £30 I think but that was pretty pricey for me but as I was basically lost trying to figure out what the hell was going on so I thought it was worth it. it may be worth a look if your interested in the relationship between politics, philosophy and science. https://books.google.co.uk/books/about/Einstein_and_Soviet_Ideology.html?id=f_-lAYZzP1UC&redir_esc=y That may not be what you were hoping for (and is a lot more than I was expecting to find honestly- so thanks for asking!), but it could be some pretty rich reading material if you're interested.
  13. According to some later Marxists trying to understand the history of science as class ideology, the idea of Atomism as the universe consisting of stable fixed bodies with inherent properties was the intellectual basis of individualism, in which individuals as "commodities" would collide with one another in the marketplace. "freedom" is therefore the free movement of individuals as social atoms in society based on laws of value as individuals collide in competition, and do not need a"divine" intervention to organise themselves. human nature represents an inherent building bloc of man as an "atom" with fixed properties. Sadly, I haven't seen this argument developed or really demonstrated but it was an interesting attempt to try to explain the scientific revolution as a "capitalist" revolution in human thought and show a relationship between natural and social science. Now I'm just showing off.
  14. He rejected it by insisting on another interpretation of the relationship between God and Adam as a basis for individual rights (if I remember correctly). It may have been a liberal statement of individual freedom, but it was constructed using christian theology and biblical quotations as its building blocks. So there isn't a sharp line between Christianity and Liberalism at this stage of its development and it is not definitively secular. Chpater IV Of Adam's title to soverignty, by donation. (part 24) http://www.nlnrac.org/earlymodern/locke/documents/first-treatise-of-government In opposition, therefore, to our author’s doctrine, that “Adam was monarch of the whole world,” founded on this place I shall show, 1. That by this grant, Gen. i. 28. God gave no immediate power to Adam over men, over his children, over those of his own species; and so he was not made ruler, or monarch, by this charter. 2. That by this grant God gave him not private dominion over the inferior creatures, but right in common with all mankind; so neither was he monarch, upon the account of the property here given him. Kind of. (on paper at least) Its more like the laws of history identify the "potential" energy but human action is still the way in which it is released. So if I hold a ball over the ground, the law of gravity means there is the potential energy for it to fall- but that is only realised by my action of releasing it. So Marx identified the "potential" energy for Socialism in the contradiction between Socialised Production and Private Property which was then "realised" by the Proletariat in the act of socialist revolution. we are prisoners of circumstance and our freedom consists in the degree of our mastery over it by changing it. As Marx put it: Men make their own history, but they do not make it as they please; they do not make it under self-selected circumstances, but under circumstances existing already, given and transmitted from the past. The tradition of all dead generations weighs like a nightmare on the brains of the living. And just as they seem to be occupied with revolutionizing themselves and things, creating something that did not exist before, precisely in such epochs of revolutionary crisis they anxiously conjure up the spirits of the past to their service, borrowing from them names, battle slogans, and costumes in order to present this new scene in world history in time-honored disguise and borrowed language. https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1852/18th-brumaire/ch01.htm This was an area of considerable debate amongst Marxist however because it concerned the nature of freedom under Socialism and the relationship between freedom and determinism. In practice, its much more debatable especially when you get to the identification of the state with the laws of history and the subordination of the individual to those laws realised in man's conscious mastery of production through planning under Socialism. Man is free only to the degree to which he is in harmony with the state, the plan and the laws of history. A certain degree of freedom of action does exist, but no where near enough in my view. That sounds about right. So I may be wrong on that.
  15. I'm sort of following from the idea of the "protestant work ethic" rather than Christianity as a whole. Christianity itself may be a feudal ideology based on its prevelence for european feudal society which explains the re-distributive elements, and the centralisation of authority into the hands of a monotheistic deity as symbolic of the centralisation of authority into the hands of a monarch. the marxist analysis of religion is definitely not a strong point, but I think it is fair to say that many economic and political ideas of liberal capitalism developed out of the protestant reformation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Protestant_Ethic_and_the_Spirit_of_Capitalism John Locke's Two Treaties on Government is not a bad an example. I realise Americans like it because it provided one of the intellectual inspirations for the founding fathers in drafting the US constitution so it may resonate with Objectivists and Libertarians. the first treaty on government deals with the relationship of the rights of individuals and the monarch using the rights of the biblical "Adam" as the patriarch as a basis for the divine right of kings (a king being the father, the people being the children). so the relationship between Christianity and Liberalism is pretty explicit and it shocked me quite a bit as that was not what I was expecting. (see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_Treatises_of_Government#First_Treatise ) Christians in the 20th century also went out of its way to repudiate any relationship between Christianity and Communism or socialism as "materialist" doctrines incompatible with belief in God. its probably in self-defence so they didn't lose followers but an explicitly theological case was made too. from Protestent fundamentalist Christianity: https://www.blueletterbible.org/Comm/torrey_ra/fundamentals/71.cfm from the Catholic Church: https://w2.vatican.va/content/pius-xi/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xi_enc_19370319_divini-redemptoris.html The religious character of Socialism and Marxism has been one of the reasons it originally appealed to me. As an atheist and a materialist, it sort of fulfilled a desire for "meaning" by thinking you can make a contribution to a bigger picture. there wasn't a book I could open for advice about big life questions, but Marxism was occasionally useful for approaching those kind of things in a fresh way. Of course, wanting that kind of moral guidance is a window for authoritarianism but as a kid that didn't really occur to me when I started out. There was a "deviation" amongst Marxists that supported a "socialist religion" known as the God-Builders and its something I have been sympathetic to. its not clear whether religion being a "false" conscious necessarily means that the propensity for fanaticism, sectarianism, cult-like behaviour, etc would disappear under Socialism. History would suggest not if the personality cult in North Korea is anything to go by, but the same theme kept coming up over and over again. In the USSR in the 1920's they had "red weddings" such as peasents being married in front of a tractor and "red baptisms" where babies were "octobered" before a picture of Lenin. it's all very weird but fascinating none the less. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God-Building https://riojjones.wordpress.com/2016/10/26/octobering-red-baptisms-and-soviet-baby-names/
  16. Not sure of your circumstances, but as I recall Economics is a miss-match of various schools using concepts from both Neo-Classical and Keynesian Economics. The neo-classical and Keynesian economics are used in a synthesis based on treating microeconomics (individuals, business and particularly sectors) and macroeconomics (national, global and government) as simply different scales of study. Economics courses may be prone to be "intolerant" of dissenting views or "heterodox economics" by teaching the course material as if it were a scientific fact not up for discussion. the philosophical implications of economics generally do not come up, even though they are more interesting for telling us hard truths about human motivation. Moreover, its worth having a very good understanding of mathematics before you study economics as much of the course material is about applying mathematical concepts and formulas of "rational choice theory" as "econometrics" rather than philosophical thought about economic motivations or organisation. (this is why I nearly failed my first year because I hated the maths even if I was actually ok at it). economics courses have come under significant criticism from Student groups in the UK (and such protests have gone global). the major objection being that they are out of touch with the economic realities and implications of the 2008 Crash. Some of the material below may be of interest: http://www.post-crasheconomics.com/ https://www.theguardian.com/business/2013/oct/24/students-post-crash-economics I dropped out of Economics in 2008 (but was really interested in it at Secondary School/Sixth form and was good at it). It was probably the right decision but completely de-railed my career trajectory. there were maybe 20 people on the course doing "pure" economics over something like business economics or finance, etc. I found that many people left the course who were actually interested in it because they were so dissatisfied with it: I came from a Marxist-Socialist background but admired J.K. Galbraith and wouldn't have minded following in his footsteps, whereas another was a Keynesian (and member of the British National Party), and a third was very interested in Milton Friedman as a libertarian (and moved to a politics course I think). I did draw the conclusion that those who were actually principled in studying economics didn't like the "messiness" and the dogmatic and monolithic nature of the course material, so you may find yourself in a similar situation. I'm NOT saying don't do it- but it could be something that may not work out if you are a "free thinker" and are reluctant to compromise your principles of desire for truth and knowledge. professional economists are doing it for the money and its reasonable to think their work reflects the interests of whoever pays their salary. this joke sort of illustrates the point: A mathematician, an accountant and an economist apply for the same job. The interviewer calls in the mathematician and asks "What do two plus two equal?" The mathematician replies "Four." The interviewer asks "Four, exactly?" The mathematician looks at the interviewer incredulously and says "Yes, four, exactly." Then the interviewer calls in the accountant and asks the same question "What do two plus two equal?" The accountant says "On average, four - give or take ten percent, but on average, four." Then the interviewer calls in the economist and poses the same question "What do two plus two equal?" The economist gets up, locks the door, closes the shade, sits down next to the interviewer and says, "What do you want it to equal"? I'm not sure how useful it may be, but I remember the authors of my graduate first-year economics textbook. It will probably depend on which university you go to but there is a revised edition of the textbook still in use. If you can find a copy (preferably cheap) it could give you a much better idea of where Economics courses are at and if its really what your looking for. https://www.amazon.co.uk/Economics-Richard-Lipsey/dp/0199257841
  17. it's probably nowhere near as informative as good book, but if you want a few hours of good television on the period of the Revolution and the early Republic, it may be worth watching HBO's series on "John Adams".
  18. I can't say definitively if this is a Randian position, but at a guess Rand probably meant that people worked hard and were a creative force in society and, in the act of creation, realised their individuality should be valued. They should necessarily be successful and valued for realising their individuality and making a life-affirming contribution to the world with their lives (based on the intrinsic rewards of creation rather than an "altruist" obligation). arrogance is in its way a form of psychological parasitism, because people believe themselves to be "entitled" to praise and self-affirmation (when in fact its often a cover for deep seats insecurities). So they turn their being "rewarded" with praise into an obligation and a duty, rather than a voluntary and sincere expression of worth. its a symptom of a bigger problem. That is namely that we live in a corporate capitalist society which distorts rewards in the market so that they go to people who are "good" at manipulating money flows in finance or lobbying the government to get subsidies rather than those who, by ingenuity and hard work create new products, improve old ones or find new uses for old ones (and by doing so out of their own self-interest, unintentionally make the world better for all of us). So "successful" is not the same as "valuable". In all probability- your freinds from college are loaded with debt, utterly dependent on their jobs to pay it off and take on parasitic attitudes as a result. they haven't developed into true individuals capable of creation or production but have aborted it in favour of "quick gains" and using that as a symbol of success to cover up just how shaky the financial and psychological foundations of their "success" is. lording it over you, just means they have no real achievement to their name. they just have status symbols for agreeing to live in a golden cage by blindly conforming to authority that dolls out the spoils. First off, respect yourself. use an hour or so when you have time off to write down what really annoys you and gets under your skin about this person/these people. decide what are the things they do that you cannot deal with under any circumstances, and focus on those. people are different and we can find ways to manage our differences, but if someone is really going for you and bullying you- then you have to admit its a problem (and it is not an obligation on you to "change" to accommodate their BS). Then it becomes a practical question of finding ways to work with them, around them, or- if they are complete a-holes- cutting them out of the equation. only use the last option if there is no alternative that does not involve so level of humiliation, harassment, bullying etc- which is bad no matter who it comes from.
  19. it would be accurate to say that Communists do not believe individuals have natural rights. Yeah. they aren't nihilists but sometimes its hard to tell the difference.
  20. One of the responses to Climate Change that has had increasing attention is the idea of "engineering" the climate. this is still peripheral to discussions of climate change but may become more important as time goes on as a "techno-fix" if we fail to reduce emissions quickly enough to avert catastrophic climate change. It could be argued that by emitting greenhouse gases we are already engaged in an uncontrolled experiment with the Climate, and that climate engineering is simply trying to take control of something we are already doing. Broadly, Climate Engineering technologies divide into two types; solar radiation management and carbon dioxide removal from the atmosphere. it raises a lot of questions about the impacts of using the technology, how its use is governed internationally, the level of uncertainty in manipulating the earth's thermostat, if climate engineering creates a moral hazard so that we won't actually reduce greenhouse gas emissions as fast as we could and whether this is an emergency measure or is in fact the realisation of an ideal of man's mastery over nature. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_engineering I'm was wondering what people's thoughts are on Climate Engineering and if there are any strong opinions favouring or opposing it?
  21. 1. How old are you? 28 (or at least I will be in a month) 2. Do you currently consider yourself a Communist? That's a hard one because Communists don't "believe" in Communism as an opinion or subjective individual belief. They'd assert it as a "scientific" conception of society built on objectively real and true laws of social development. So the way you ask the question is like "Do you currently consider yourself a Newtonian?" and in terms of how fundamental it is in terms of the pattern of reasoning, you may reply "Is believing in the law of gravity even a choice?" As horrifying as the consequences of the law of gravity are for someone falling off a cliff- does that make the law of gravity immoral or untrue because it contradicts moral truths? Capitalism relies on theories of natural law that came out of Christianity: the belief in free will, human nature, natural rights, etc. these are very useful philosophical principles as a basis for moral objections to Communism, but to a Communist its like saying "the earth is clearly flat- just look at that horizon! the horizon is flat so the earth is flat! the sun moves in the sky- so clearly the sun moves round the earth!". Marxism is a philosophy of history, so its perspective is a lot bigger than individual observations of our finite horizon within our lifetime. human history is bigger than our own individual observations, but that level of abstraction risks huge errors. Marxism does for Social Sciences what Galileo did for Natural Science: he showed that the world doesn't revolve around us and as human beings we aren't "special". the troubling moral implications of Communism are a reflection of coming to terms with the fact we are not the masters of society or even our own nature. we are at the mercy of forces that we do not understand or control- and its from this that the Marxists argue "we need to know society and to control it" with all its totalitarian implications. where I'm at is- assuming that Marxism is in fact a form of scientific knowledge- how do I best use it so that it will ultimately be the greatest good? The problem is, that what ever my intentions, there is no control on who would use that knowledge or what for. so it cannot be made "safe". 3. If so, are you saying you are doubting Communism as a philosophy as a result of your awareness of the outcomes of it in practice? Imagine being present at the detonation of the first atom bomb. the destructive power of the thing as it rips apart the landscape. seeing something (from the safety of a remote location through darkened goggles) as hot as the sun, incinerating everything in its path. then realising that this is going to be used against people and this is your life's work. As Oppenheimer said, "I have become death, the destroyer of worlds". Having read a great deal about Communism's atrocities, I can understand that position as I'm "just a theorist" scribbling away ideas on tonnes of paper thinking its harmless, safely watching this thing explode at a distance, incinerating whole societies in its wake, laying waste to people's lives. I spent years reading, learning and trying to imagine all this stuff so its personal. then you make the "connection" and see yourself as part of this picture and can't get out of it. its like falling through a trap door into the abyss. not pleasant at all. Its less a sense of "doubt", more like "desolation" as I watch moral certainties I once held get burned in the wake of this idea spreading outwards as I realise its implications. I can't ignore that understanding or un-invent the totalitarian state and I'm of the belief that "something" like that could happen again. I might be able to use that understanding for something better and make it right somehow but I don't know what that looks like. you just do what you can.
  22. p.s. People talk about "Cultural Marxism" nowadays and whilst the influence of Western Marxism and the Frankfurt School is pretty pervasive on university campuses and in the media, it doesn't compare with the "hard stuff" in Marxism-Leninism that came out of Russia. they are like distant cousins intellectually with common ancestry but very little else in common. it maybe like comparing cannabis with cocaine because they're both illegal substances but ignoring how differently they effect people; Western Marxism slow you down, depresses you, fills you with guilt and makes you paranoid, Marxism-Leninism makes you feel indestructible, that you could conquer the world and care about nothing other than the cause because the buzz feels that good. I think you may see what I'm getting at. At a guess, Cultural Marxism is more a by-product of Liberalism insistence on egalitarianism than on anything arising out of Revolutionary Marxism itself. its sort of weird to find myself turning against "Marxism" as its becoming fashionable again. I hope I just know better but I can't be sure.
  23. excellent. Both my parents were teachers working in public sector and were Socialists. They were involved in the Labour Party and were pro-Blair and New Labour. My dad had a strong environmental/green bent (as he was also in the Green Party at an earlier age). So I really couldn't escape politics growing up with a lot of discussions going on (and in retrospect it was really unhealthy). Communism came up in a history textbook and I just read about it and it stuck by marrying my interest in history and science. Later on I went to University and did a year studying economics and it was quite a big shock to realise how out of sync I was with the "conventional wisdom". it gets more complicated from here because I fell in love with a flat mate and have spent the past nine years coming out as bisexual and dealing with depression. I left university in october 2008, so the financial crisis just gave me an extra push to walk away knowing the course was not in touch with reality as I understood it. Communism happened at that moment of vulnerability when I felt really lost and needed answers as depression started. After my crush from Uni visited Cambodia, I had a moment of honesty and read up about the atrocities in the black book of Communism. Within a month I was reading Freidmann's Capitalism and Freedom and read Hayek's the Road to Serfdom from cover to cover as it scared me that much. its taken years to unpick marxist ideology then at the start of the year, after Trump got elected, I got caught up in the liberal hysteria and wondered if I should go join a Stalinist party in the UK; emotionally, sorting through what I feel as part of dealing with depression has made me come out strongly against the idea. On paper, there is the rationale for it (just about), but in practice- hell no. not a chance. somethings really wrong with the world to make that seem even plausible. the media aren't helping by sensationalising everything out of proportion. There may be some truth in Marxism but overall I've become aware of how abstract it is, how poorly thought out it is when it comes to asking the really important questions about truth and ethics and how crucial violence is in the ideology which has just sucked the soul and joy out of it. I'm still a Communist by force of habit as I haven't escaped its influence and in certain ways helped with the depression making me feel more empowered but I'm looking to move on just for the sake of being happy so I can put depression behind me if I can. the unhealthy and destructive side has become more obvious as time has gone on. I think a fascination with Marxist ideas is not uncommon amongst students in the UK, but statistically the far left has never got more than 0.5-1% of the vote in elections. far left politics is divided between the very old (who can't escape old habits) and the very young- but amongst the general population there is little appetite for Communism. its possible it may just die out within a few decades if it doesn't renew itself. that being said, it's not accurate to say that most communists or Marxists actually have much understanding of what they are saying or doing; the ideas just produce an intoxicating and persuasive high of thinking you know everything and are important enough to "change the world". For most people that doesn't last beyond 30 or 40 at most and only a tiny minority keep going. the far left in the UK simply hasn't recovered since the collapse of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War- they're just stuck in being sectarian and can't do anything useful or productive. So if Communism has a future- we're talking miracles at this point. Being depressed, vulnerable, pretty smart and deluded enough to think that means I can find all the answers means Communism has burnt brighter and longer than it does for most people but that's definitely not the norm.
  24. As to the last question, I'd say Yes. Patriotism and Nationalism could well be forms of altruism in which individuals are obligated to surrender their rights to the state, so participation in a pseudo-mystical cult of collectivist state worship is not ideal (nor is it conducive to reason). As an individual you are not obligated to conform by putting the flag up at your house. It can be argued that it is individuals who have rights and that freedom is not the gift of the state to the people, so you really owe no debt to the government to be obligated to celebrate its authority by flag waving anyway. it really depends on how you evaluate the importance of the flag as a symbol and political statement.
  25. Thanks everyone. Its been an interesting read so far. keep the replies coming- I will read them all.
×
×
  • Create New...