Socialism a prerequisite to civilisation?

Originally posted by Wajoma

what a great expression eh 'make money'...not 'take money', not 'defraud money out of someone', but to make money, literally create wealth

Have you read Francisco's speech? It's a great one, don't you think?

http://www.atlasshrugged.tv/speech.htm

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
Have you read Francisco's speech? It's a great one, don't you think?

http://www.atlasshrugged.tv/speech.htm

...quite inspiring, actually.
The foundation of a moral code expressed in concrete terms.

Thanks for the link. It's been over 25 years since I've read those words.

Originally posted by monster truck
...quite inspiring, actually.
The foundation of a moral code expressed in concrete terms.

You may be interested in this debate, Thread 36603.

Originally posted by Wajoma
Very basically it dosen't matter how much money is in the economy (within reason). Less currency available means that the currency that is available is worth more.

When government 'prints' money faster than wealth is produced then the value of the dollar/ringit/rupiah goes down, we call this inflation,what it actually is - is a secondary (in some cases i ...[text shortened]... ..and it is wealth creators that we should be putting on a pedestal along side the atheletes.

Excellent. You get a Rec from me.

As a further bit of information...

In a capitalist society, such as the US, the ability to create new money is distributed down from the federal reserve which is a part of the Executive branch of government under the cabinet level direction of the secretary of the Treasury.

Any bank can CREATE NEW MONEY by issuing loans which are not covered by capital reserves. The credit standing of a bank or lending institution such as not for profit credit unions can issue business and private loans with as little as 3% reserve capital to cover the loan.

This is both a risk and a benefit. The risk is that when the loan goes bad... say you gave a million dollar loan to a commie for example... Then the public has to cover the expense of the newly created money. This takes the form of "inflation". In the us economy, we have a failure rate of about 2% on business loans. That isn't too bad considering that only half of all new business start-ups last 5 years.

But the benefit is enormous! Small business and privately owned companies are the soul of this nation. They employ more people than big corporations. They provide what socialist countries can only dream of -- THE RIGHT TO BE ANYTHING YOU WANT TO BE IF YOU ONLY DARE RISK IT.

That is the power of capitalism. The dream of building something from nothing.

Anyway. Great post and it's good to see that at least some people still "get it" when it comes to the meaning of life. It ain't to be fed and clothed by others. It's to help the poor with ones surplus.

Originally posted by Leo2
I was talking about systems which look after people who need looking after. I was asking if it was better or not to have these systems funded out of taxation. I pointed out that the systems which seemed to be the most successful were one which did that.
Unless someone can show me that the systems which do not fund social services and healthcare, etc. o ccessful, I have to conclude that the first way is better, and therefore more civilised.

Leo

My whole point, Leo, is that these are not cases of systems looking out for people, but rather people using systems to look out for themselves.

As for which system is best, we can thank Professor Kenneth Arrow and his famous Impossibility Theorem for rendering that forever an open question. Personally, I favor ones that are more redistributive, but unfortunately taxes that fund these redistributive programs are distortionary and thus encourage (all else being equal) slower growth. Slower growth may be acceptable if it leads to a "better" wealth distribution. There's a tradeoff here, and it's up to the individual to decide where to draw the line.

Once again, you throw around words like 'successful' and 'civilized' without defining what you mean. Previously, I have criticized your question on these grounds because if your standard for success is the welfare of the poor and sick then, by definition, governments that redistribute more wealth to them will be judged 'successful.' On the otherhand, if you judge success by GDP/capita or national income then the USA would be the most successful by far. If you judge by growth in GDP, then look no further than China.

I like using 'wealth mobility' as a standard or part of a standard. How likely is it that a hard-working impoverished person can move into the upper tiers of the wealth distribution. How likely is it that the born-rich who are not hard-working will move down in the wealth distribution? Essentially, what is the correlation between effort and wealth. The obvious problem with this measure though is how does one measure effort? We can do is estimate the degree to which some one from a lower tier moves up and some one from a higher tier moves down.

What does 'civilized' mean in the way that you use it? Is it basically the same as your meaning of 'successful'? If this is the case, then all you are doing is interchanging three equivalent ideas (successful=civilized=progressively redistributive). By definition then, socialism (as you chosen to define it) is more civilized.

Don't get me wrong. I think your question is important. I just think you are far too loose with your criterion.

Originally posted by telerion
Don't get me wrong. I think your question is important. I just think you are far too loose with your criterion.

No, I'm not being 'loose' with my definitions, and I accept that perhaps some people have different views of what is civilised and what is successful.

I have tried to make it clear that what I consider a civilised and a sociologically successful society is one in which there are not vast differences of wealth and circumstance, where there are equal opportunities and facilities regardless of financial situation, where social status is not solely dependant upon material possession, where there is compassion and safety nets for those in need, and wherein there is a minimum of violence and exploitation.

These are popular concepts of civilisation, social justice, and sociological success which are well established throughout Europe, and do not usually require further definition.

Originally posted by Leo2
No, I'm not being 'loose' with my definitions, and I accept that perhaps some people have different views of what is civilised and what is successful.

I have tried to make it clear that what I consider a civilised and a sociologically successful society is one in which there are not vast differences of wealth and circumstance, where there are equal opportun ...[text shortened]... which are well established throughout Europe, and do not usually require further definition.

Fair enough then, but I don't think the discussion is gonna get very far with your strict definitions.

Originally posted by telerion
Fair enough then, but I don't think the discussion is gonna get very far with your strict definitions.

Prehistoric man had an egalitarian society, partly because they had almost nothing to own. It was a totally free but very precarious existence. With the introduction of agriculture and the domestication of certain animals they embarked upon what is known as civilization. Civilization led to the specialization of labor and the emergance of classes within society. Man traded his freedom for more security. Because their productive capacity was miniscule, ruling classes became necessary to regulate the distribution of those inadequate resources. We see the emergance of states where all power is concentrated in the hands of a god-king. Every advancement in civilization led to increased productive power, greater security, and the greater distribution of power within society. That is what it means to be a more advanced civilization. Each new age has followed this trajectory: greater productivity, greater security, and the greater distribution of power within society. The ultimate goal of civiization is to provide maximum productivity, maximum security, and the broadest distribution of power within society. Any civilization that can do that would be the most civilized.

With the emergance of capitalism this has become possible. We now have the productive capacity to achieve complete security. As we no longer have to adminster the distribution of inadequate resources, the rationale for maintaining ruling classes has evaporated. We have the ability to return to the egalitarianism of our prehistoric forefathers while maintaining all the benefits civilization has provided. But we cannot do that under capitalism. Capitalism has made the ultimate advancement of civilization possible, but can never lead us to it. In order to take that final step, capitalism must be overcome. The final step in civilization's evolutionary trajectory will be anarchist socialism. Building on the enormous productive gains made possible under capitalism, anarchism will lead to the broadest distribution of power within society. An anarchist society will be the greatest possible advancement of civilization and its greatest fulfillment.

Originally posted by rwingett
Prehistoric man had an egalitarian society, partly because they had almost nothing to own. It was a totally free but very precarious existence. With the introduction of agriculture and the domestication of certain animals they embarked upon what is known as civilization. Civilization led to the specialization of labor and the emergance of classes within soc ...[text shortened]... society will be the greatest possible advancement of civilization and its greatest fulfillment.

You claim that classes only emerged with agriculture. I'd imagine, however, that men and women in prehistoric societies could be seen as different 'classes' as they typically had different roles and different status and different resources (right? I am no cultural anthropologist). Also, what about the differences between warriors and shamans and chiefs? Can't those be seen to be different classes?

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
You claim that classes only emerged with agriculture. I'd imagine, however, that men and women in prehistoric societies could be seen as different 'classes' as they typically had different roles and different status and different resources (right? I am no cultural anthropologist). Also, what about the differences between warriors and shamans and chiefs? Can't those be seen to be different classes?

I thought of this as well when I read his post. I'm not sure that pre-ag societies were order-free. My first guess would be that the social institutions (clan leader, male hunter, woman breeder/gatherer, child breeder/gatherer) would have been for far more restrictive than they are today, but I know very little of pre-ag social constructs.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
You claim that classes only emerged with agriculture. I'd imagine, however, that men and women in prehistoric societies could be seen as different 'classes' as they typically had different roles and different status and different resources (right? I am no cultural anthropologist). Also, what about the differences between warriors and shamans and chiefs? Can't those be seen to be different classes?

Prehistoric societies had order, of course. But it was not institutionalized with all the power concentrated in the hands of one man. Prehistoric clans were very egailitarian compared to modern society. All the members of the clan had a say in it's operation. The headman was not a dictator to whom everyone else owed fealty. He was accounatable to the rest of the clan. The divisions of labor that existed were essentially only two: men's work and women's work. The chief hunted. He probably would have been the best hunter among them. He certainly didn't order everyone else to go out and do his hunting for him while he dallied with the lasses. He wouldn't have lasted very long in his capacity. Prehistoric societies were very anarchistic.

But they traded that freedom for greater economic security and in the process mankind became alienated from himself. We have gained a great deal of security over the millenium but have sacrificed much of our freedom and our very humanity in the process. We have become cogs in a vast machine, performing our allotted tasks, with little input into the direction of our lives. We have become bloated, passive shadows of our former selves.

But it doesn't have to stay this way. We could fully regain our humanity and the full measure of our freedom. If only we dared to demand a little more than what we have been allotted.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
Have you read Francisco's speech? It's a great one, don't you think?

http://www.atlasshrugged.tv/speech.htm

Agreed, inspiring is the word.

Appreciate the effort that went into the debate, good going.