Capitalism vs Socialism: Selfishness and utility.

[soon2bepro]

--------------
This post may be more suited for the politics forum, but I think this is a better forum to post this. Partially because of the personal issues I talk of, and partially because I just think here it'll get more of the kind of replies I'm looking for.
--------------

Because I have a personal philosophy of extreme egoism, when I analyze what economic/social system I prefer, I only think of what is best for me, not for others.

Now, being far smarter and much better at applying logic than the average person, it's much better for me to live in a society where you can profit as much as possible (in all senses) from an advantage in these. Also, since I'm almost totally amoral, it really pays to live in a society with so many implicit "rules" that aren't really rules, they're just stuff people will or won't do because of the way they feel about them, but people won't normally enforce these implicit rules on others. It really pays to live in a society that can be exploited so easily by correctly analyzing risks and EV, and the lack of a reluctance to do anything that has a good +EV-to-variance ratio.

But I'm not just talking about money, but utility. Money itself is of no use if you can't buy anything with it. But this society is so exploitable because money is easy to make if you have these edges, and you can buy so many things with money that count as utility, including MORE money!

So it's clear that as of today, extreme capitalism is clearly the best system to suit my needs.

However, when I consider the way science and technology progresses, which is mostly exponentially (especially science), I think that if I had to choose a society to live in in say, 50 years, and it had to maximize utility, I think it should probably be a society that allowed for the maximization of the exponential progress of science. And even though ACers and other extreme capitalists try to convince us that this system maximizes this, it just doesn't. Science is best for all, but not really better for a particular individual or company. It often just doesn't pay to invest in science when someone else can. Even worse is when different groups invest in the same or different areas of science, and they're not revealing their expensive information and research. This greatly damages the huge exponential growth of science.

So in the long run, because of this and other simpler arguments, to me it's clearly best to have a society that's based in everyone working for the group rather than everyone working for themselves. A single ant is nothing on it's own, but a colony of ants all working towards the same goal can achieve so much more. This added power grows exponentially with humans, because of intelligence that adds on intelligence, knowledge that adds on knowledge, and strategy that adds on strategy. It is especially the case in science, as I said before, but it applies to mostly all areas of human works and objectives.

A common argument against this is that humans are genetically selfish individuals, and that because of this, if people don't feel they're working for their own individual benefit, they won't do as much, put as much effort, etc. But this is a dubious statement to say the least.

So, to sum up: If the objective is to get the greatest total utility for (a) society, I think some kind of global socialism has to be better, even in the short run. If the objective is individual utility, then, depending on the individual, extreme global capitalism can be better, but only for a time, until the time where the other system would've caught up, and until eventually the average utility for a good socialist system is greater than the utility that the extreme global capitalism would give to the wealthiest person.

In my particular case, I still prefer things to go pretty much the way they're going, short term towards extreme capitalism, and maybe in the long term, when the average person isn't so stupid and dumb, benefit from a partially or totally socialist system. For what is worth, I may have these preferences, but I'm not willing to put my little grain of sand, that is, I'm not willing to make an effort to get society to change, because this won't make enough difference to be worth it, and my doing it or not doing it doesn't influence enough people.

Another point I wanted to touch, is that during the transition between capitalism and socialism, the richer will suffer a great loss of their utility/power, so it may not be worth it for them even if in the long run it could result in a higher utility level. I'm not sure if it's worth it for me. The current society is just too easy for me. And I don't want to suffer for years and years to get better only after a long time, when my life is mostly lived out.

Have in mind that when I discuss society, I mostly mean most or all of the human society. If you isolate a small portion in a particular system, it's gonna do really bad, almost no matter what. This is partially why I think socialism can't be applied in a particular country, and why most attempts have failed horribly or at the best didn't do as good as they could've if they adhered to the global capitalist system.

[Nielsio]

[ QUOTE ]
So, to sum up: If the objective is to get the greatest total utility for (a) society, I think some kind of global socialism has to be better, even in the short run. If the objective is individual utility, then, depending on the individual, extreme global capitalism can be better, but only for a time, until the time where the other system would've caught up, and until eventually the average utility for a good socialist system is greater than the utility that the extreme global capitalism would give to the wealthiest person.

[/ QUOTE ]


And the ruling class cares about this why???

[soon2bepro]

I don't care why they should care, I don't draw conclusions on the basis of what they're good for.

[arahant]

[ QUOTE ]

A common argument against this is that humans are genetically selfish individuals, and that because of this, if people don't feel they're working for their own individual benefit, they won't do as much, put as much effort, etc. But this is a dubious statement to say the least.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's a pretty offhanded dismissal.
First of all, I think we've pretty much shown that socialist systems are disastrous.

The example you give of science is nonsense. Science involves personal gain for the individuals and companies involved, and competition is an important way to drive progress. The human genome project would still be lanquishing if private enterprise hadn't put a fire under the ass of the government project.

Socialist science is no different than socialist markets. Maybe it would progress faster if more information were shared, but not when compared to a centrally planned system. (typo...you get the idea) For that matter, very little important work stays private for very long.

[cambraceres]

The Soviet system under Stalin proved whatever needs to be proven about the altogether astonishing productive power of it's socialist regime, but let's not get carried away. America for it's own part did quite well proliferating technology, industry, and general utility.

There are several problems with your idea.

First, the best and only certain way to get someone to do something is to make them want to do it. This is possible in both systems, indeed it is even simple, but one fosters it to a higher degree. I need not define this more.

Second, and a corollary, socialist systems when applied to large populations fail by reason of human nature, therefor even a monumental gain in utility is meaningless in the middle of upheaval and civil strife.

Third, Scientific gains are not dependent upon things like opacity; as such your analysis of corporate secrecy is not valid. progress of this type does not stay "Private", peer review takes care of this.

^ ^ ^ ^ ^
substantive content

As an aside, science is not neccessarily best for all. Science is what excels humans when applied with love. A world of loving enlightened peoples is an ill-concieved chimera. Science; when placed into the hands of these fallible creatures with such murderous proclivities as these called humans, is already on it's way to being abused before it ever sees the light of rational review. We think of ways to exploit and abuse our fellow men with technologies that don't even exist yet. We are sapping our world of it's "Nutritive" elements. Our lives are sustained by resources. Our resources are running out because of the efficiency and driving nature of the industrial process.

If we don't stop, the famous death of birth may come, and at that time we'll say "How could we not have seen it coming?"

Cam

[soon2bepro]

[ QUOTE ]
That's a pretty offhanded dismissal.

[/ QUOTE ]

There are numerous examples where people have shown to be more motivated towards working as a group, often large groups, sometimes so large that they don't know each other.

[ QUOTE ]
First of all, I think we've pretty much shown that socialist systems are disastrous.

[/ QUOTE ]

Where and when has this been shown? Through the so-called socialist systems that existed through history? Please re-read my post, in the last paragraph I explain why this doesn't prove anything.

[ QUOTE ]
Science involves personal gain for the individuals and companies involved,

[/ QUOTE ] It's not enough. It involves much more overall benefit for the whole of society.

[ QUOTE ]
and competition is an important way to drive progress.

[/ QUOTE ]

It is, but that's not to say the lack of competition in a socialist would mean less production. Besides you can have competition in socialism, in many ways.

[ QUOTE ]
The human genome project would still be lanquishing if private enterprise hadn't put a fire under the ass of the government project.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know about the truth or falseness of your statement, but if so, what does this prove? Nothing. Completely irrelevant comment.


However these are exactly the kind of replies I was expecting. Maybe borodog can provide some decent arguments, but you just seem to be a capitalism groupie. A pitty, because you're quite objective in other areas.

[soon2bepro]

[ QUOTE ]
The Soviet system under Stalin proved whatever needs to be proven about the altogether astonishing productive power of it's socialist regime, but let's not get carried away. America for it's own part did quite well proliferating technology, industry, and general utility.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you people stupid? Or maybe you post before reading the whole post? Or I didn't express myself correctly? Please re-read my last paragraph in the OP, And tell me if there's something you don't understand.

[ QUOTE ]
First, the best and only certain way to get someone to do something is to make them want to do it. This is possible in both systems, indeed it is even simple, but one fosters it to a higher degree.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're right. It's amazing people still accept to be exploited under a system like capitalism. Then again, people were exploited for as long as civilization has existed.

[ QUOTE ]
Second, and a corollary, socialist systems when applied to large populations fail by reason of human nature, therefor even a monumental gain in utility is meaningless in the middle of upheaval and civil strife.

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree. There has never been a socialist society. There were just sparks of socialism but that's not enough to make for a system that works well.

[ QUOTE ]
As an aside, science is not neccessarily best for all.

[/ QUOTE ]

Everything you said from here on is irrelevant to the point I'm making. If you wanna make another thread to discuss this I'm up for it.

[cambraceres]

Sorry for a late response, it is my only option save abstaining altogether.

You're right that I did not read your whole post, furthermore this elicited a rather misguided statement from me. For this I wish to show proper contrition, but for your part, a bit of patience may foster rational discussion, our point after all. Mutual invective can do no real good here, only thorough directed discussion can bring us comprehension.

So on with it then, can you explain a little more why it is you believe collectivist societies would have more productive capabilities than any other type?
From OP I gather opacity and the "fact" that
[ QUOTE ]
It often just doesn't pay to invest in science when someone else can.

[/ QUOTE ] If you can give some other arguments that would be helpful. The above quote is as wrong as can be; consider what you are saying. You say that it often doesn't pay to add to the progress of science when someone else will invest the value. This means it doesn't make sense for Johnson and Johnson to conduct research that Dow is already doing. It would be considered insane for them to NOT study it. The argument of opacity has merit, but it is not enough of a mitigating factor in this sense. This is a debateable point.

Also, why would you consider dubious any statement which illustrates the common nature of man to work for his own good before and above that of others. You yourself are an example, and although others do not express themselves in such certain and bold terms as you, I say they feel much the same. I say you are misguided here, humans are of a selfish nature, merely by virtue of the fact that one can be only himself. You are you, and are therefore selfish, making a capitalist system more conducive to human endeavour.

Before I go, I do want to point out that I stand against capitalism in many forms, but not for such mad chimeras as you have brought up for discussion.

Cam

[soon2bepro]

You're right, I got a little bit upset, I apologize.


[ QUOTE ]
So on with it then, can you explain a little more why it is you believe collectivist societies would have more productive capabilities than any other type?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because groups of people joined towards the same goal(s) achieve better results. Under capitalism, most people work for their own personal goal, in a bloody competitive way, too. Not that I don't like that. I love bloody competition, but it's just better to join efforts.

I'm not saying it'd be easy to apply, but it could be possible to apply a socialist system even if all people were as selfish as I am. In fact, if all people were like me, we'd definitely need a socialist system, because competition wouldn't pay. However fun it might be, better leave that to games and sports.

But most people are NOT like me. A lot of people get excited about working as a group, and indeed do a better job, than if they're working 9 to 5 to further increase the riches of rich people, while they merely survive. You say people don't work well when they're part of a large group. But people still vote, people still fight for movements they consider right. People love putting their little grain of sand for a larger cause.

I don't, because I'm rational enough to realize it's not worth it, but even if all people were like me, we'd come up with some sort of agreement so we could all benefit from the huge profits of joined efforts.



[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It often just doesn't pay to invest in science when someone else can.

[/ QUOTE ] If you can give some other arguments that would be helpful. The above quote is as wrong as can be; consider what you are saying. You say that it often doesn't pay to add to the progress of science when someone else will invest the value. This means it doesn't make sense for Johnson and Johnson to conduct research that Dow is already doing.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course it makes sense, but under a socialist system, there would be much more benefit in conducting research, not just for immediate results, but for the sake of knowledge and further scientific advances. I'm not saying there's no scientific progress under a capitalist system, I'm just saying there'd be much more scientific progress under a good global socialist system.

By the way, when I talk about socialism, I'm not necessarily adhering to the popular idea of what socialism is. An ideal one could be very different from that, but the core idea is that people work together towards goals, instead of against each other. Maybe not all of humanity would be under the same system. Maybe some would remain capitalists, and others would have different kind of socialist systems, but as long as there's free trade between them, different systems can co-exist.

[Aver-aging]

I never read any of the replies but..

If you give any civilization enough time to develop, society develops a set of ethics that are extremely pervasive and easily enforceable.

Right now I'm doing a big research project on pre-contact Native American cultures, from Nomadic to semi-sedentary to full out sedentary societies. The biggest trend that I'm noticing is that the Nomadic and semi-sedentary tribes that lived off of low levels of substinence and had a way of life that was similar to our hunter-gatherer ancestors had strict enforceable ethics that everyone followed. My thesis in this is that ethics eventually develop in any type of society given enough time. Those ethics are built to be suited to that particular lifestyle to maximize resources and utility for every individual and most importantly, for the entire group.

Capitalism just needs time. Give it enough time, and society will evolve ethics that suit capitalism. Capitalism is incredibly new, this process takes hundreds, or even thousands of years to complete. Capitalism would eventually perfect itself in a way to maximize utility for the whole, while allotting as many benefits to each individual as possible.

Well, theoretically at least. Socialism just isn't the answer, it's like skipping a step in between - eventually the whole system would collapse, because people are quite selfish.

[tolbiny]

Your whole post is flawed because you never address what capitalism and socialism are set up to accomplish adequately. They are economic systems and ultimately economics is about the distribution of scarce resources. Among those resources is an individual's time and energy, and all economics come down to a single person in the end, and a single person can only do so much. Statements like this
[ QUOTE ]
This is partially why I think socialism can't be applied in a particular country, and why most attempts have failed horribly or at the best didn't do as good as they could've if they adhered to the global capitalist system.


[/ QUOTE ]

Ignore the reality of individual limitations and imply that large scale socialism is currently plausible. Its not, and one of the two main reasons is that socialism requires massive centralized control which becomes inherently inefficient due to individual human limitations at a certain point. Now of course the desire is to find that point of maximum efficiency, the problem is that it constantly changes due to technological improvements which allow an individual to produce more with his time and energy. the double whammy comes as certain technologies will effect different sectors of the economy to differing degrees making predictions about the future of available resources more difficult. All this boils down to a point of maximum efficiency that is constantly in flux which requires an economic system that is designed to adjust to new idea, wants, needs and resources as quickly as possible. In this regard capitalism absolutely crushes socialism, and will continue to for the foreseeable future.