Are Socialists Really Collectivistic?
 

This is going to sound kind of funny, but I believe that most modern-day leftists aren't really collectivists at all; they're individualists (albeit grossly misguided ones :P).

Most socialists that I have spoken with do not actually act with society, as a whole, in mind. Rather, they see the forest for the trees. Most social goals are done with individuals, namely the disadvantaged, in mind. The ends are geared toward helping specific individuals, not the entire social economy.

To exemplify what I mean by thinking with the collective in mind, consider a human body. While most of us would view the human body as a whole, we know that logically it is simply a collection of highly interdependent cells. It so happens that the world we live in requires us to view these cells as more than a sum of their parts.

Almost every cell in a healthy body is a boon to the rest of the cells (and naturally for the rest of the body). We would view a living cell as a generally good thing. However, when a cell becomes dysfunctional and cannot serve its purpose, the behavior taken toward it is extremely un-socialistic. The cell is left to die, devoured by phagocytes, removed from the system, and terminated so that it does not pose a threat to the body.

This is extremely contrary to the view of "seeing the forest for the trees." If we view the body as nothing more than the sum of its cells, and prioritize the life of the individual cells as the end of our goals, we would have to view this process as wrong and wish that nutrients were delivered to struggling cells instead.

This is, in my opinion, extremely analogous to the socialist view of society. The individuals they aim to help are undoubtedly a drain on society. Those who produce less than they consume must represent a drain on our social resources. This is glaringly obvious. To protect them with limited resources can only occur by reallocating resources produced by those who benefit society, and, because they act with self-interest, must therefore inhibit their production.

A true collectivist would see poor people as an unnecessary drain on our social resources, and would give them a very low social priority, for the true greater good.

Re: Are Socialists Really Collectivistic?
 

I think what a socialist would tell you is that they support the government programs they do in order to make up for systemic inequality. They would say that poor people are poor because of the evil system (racism/capitalism/whatever) and it's not their fault, so to leave them behind is unfair. nice post.

Re: Are Socialists Really Collectivistic?
 

vnp

Re: Are Socialists Really Collectivistic?
 

I can see why people feel guilty about the poor when they think that the poor are poor BECAUSE they are rich themselves.

Re: Are Socialists Really Collectivistic?
 

Nice post, hmk.

But what would you say to someone who simply values equality? Your analogy sees a body as a worthwhile end and ignores the possibility that its cells could have worthy subdesires of their own. Who's to say which is more important? What makes the assumed goal of the whole body more important than the stated goal of the pancreas?

I don't have a problem with interpreting other people's values as worthwhile entities in their own rights even if what they want is different than what appears best for the sum of society.

EDIT: Although I guess what I just said really speaks nothing against your point here; that socialists are not actually collectivists, heh.

Re: Are Socialists Really Collectivistic?
 

[ QUOTE ]

But what would you say to someone who simply values equality?

[/ QUOTE ]

Regardless of the question of whether a system like that would actually push us closer to equality, it's unfair to take my hard earned stuff to do so. Why should I be forced to spend my money on stuff I deeply object to? I've already provided for society by performing a function for society which has left me with a stack of cash.

Re: Are Socialists Really Collectivistic?
 

The greater good is Soviet-style socialism. I think most modern socialists or social democrats don't aim for the greater good anymore. The point isn't anymore to get to the moon, to irrigate all the lands, to build a school in every village etc., the goals of today (as you claim) are more towards creating a society where every single individual has a good life. You hear more often Bush speak about the greater good than you heard it from Gerhard Schröder. I think you are pushing in an open door here.

Re: Are Socialists Really Collectivistic?
 

[ QUOTE ]
it's unfair to take my hard earned stuff to do so. Why should I be forced to spend my money on stuff I deeply object to? I've already provided for society by performing a function for society which has left me with a stack of cash.

[/ QUOTE ]

What made you think you had the right to earn all that stuff? Some people don't like looking over their shoulder and seeing people they empathize with living better lives than their own.

People can value whatever they want to value. I agree with you that valuing production seems more reasonable than valuing equality. But if I want to value my hamster as the most important thing in the world, I can do that.

People value equality out of ignorance. It's an archaic instinct I guess. Asking the average human to value a free economy policy is like asking a dog to walk on the glass floor over a cliff. He doesn't want to do it and he won't enjoy doing it. It doesn't make sense to him even though there's objectively nothing to worry about.

I tend to think people are happier when they get what they think is best. All I care about is being happy. I don't correlate happiness with production. I tend to think that the more fit an entity is to survive, the more it takes to satisfy him. I just don't see how it's possible to think a wolf's life is objectively worse than a human's. We're both here. We both won the evolutionary game. The things that make our lives seem objectively better must also operate as constraints in that we recognize burdens that are tougher to satisfy.

I think the same must hold true when you consider society its own entity. You can argue that one path would lead to life being objectively better; but in my opinion you're just making it objectively different. Society will find new burdens.

I think all I can really be sure of is that I value my friend in his own right, so I care more about what he thinks than what I think he should think. I could think its important to spend time teaching him what he should think for the betterment of society. But then is it really worth it if I don't think its possible to actually better society's condition?

Re: Are Socialists Really Collectivistic?
 

[ QUOTE ]
What made you think you had the right to earn all that stuff? Some people don't like looking over their shoulder and seeing people they empathize with living better lives than their own.

[/ QUOTE ]

not quite sure how this is relevant to me? If other people don't like seeing homeless people on their way to work, by all means, let them go ahead and do whatever makes them feels like they are helping them.

[ QUOTE ]
People can value whatever they want to value. I agree with you that valuing production seems more reasonable than valuing equality. But if I want to value my hamster as the most important thing in the world, I can do that.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have no problem with that. If hamsters are that important to you, I'll probably try and sell you a better hamster which you will like more, and if I found a way to do this we would both be happier.

I don't really see where you are going with your post. It doesn't relate to me objecting to other people forcing me to pay for their wars and wasteful social programs.

Re: Are Socialists Really Collectivistic?
 

I don't mean you can't object to that stuff. Of course you can. I'm just saying you can't claim the moral high ground if he wants you to pay for wars and social programs just because your way leads to more production.

Re: Are Socialists Really Collectivistic?
 

[ QUOTE ]
I don't mean you can't object to that stuff. Of course you can. I'm just saying you can't claim the moral high ground if he wants you to pay for wars and social programs just because your way leads to more production.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually the problem is that they both claim the moral high ground and both claim that the other is wrong and both 'know' they are right when they are both just cells of the human. Maybe neither one knows what's best for the human. Maybe they both do. Maybe their exact conflict is what is best for the human. How can they be a cell of the human and at the same time be an entity that knows what is best for the human (not to mention what is best for the human's habitat)?

Re: Are Socialists Really Collectivistic?
 

[ QUOTE ]

This is, in my opinion, extremely analogous to the socialist view of society. The individuals they aim to help are undoubtedly a drain on society.

[/ QUOTE ]

Marxists have exactly the opposite view. We see the working class as producing value, and the capitalists as parasitically extracting it. I think your post better applies to liberal democrats, and even then it only applies to a small part of their agenda.

Re: Are Socialists Really Collectivistic?
 

I think that Snowball makes a very good point.

In any case, I don't think there is anything really groundbreaking here, as you are not going to find anyone that knows what they're talking about to disagree with you. When you are talking about using resources to help out those are a drain on a society, I think it all comes down to how you define the "greater good". If we killed all babies that were mentally or physically handicapped, you could argue that that would be to the "greater good" of society.

Re: Are Socialists Really Collectivistic?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

This is, in my opinion, extremely analogous to the socialist view of society. The individuals they aim to help are undoubtedly a drain on society.

[/ QUOTE ]

Marxists have exactly the opposite view. We see the working class as producing value, and the capitalists as parasitically extracting it. I think your post better applies to liberal democrats, and even then it only applies to a small part of their agenda.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with this. I think I should have made it more clear that I was speaking specifically about modern day liberal democrats (which is about 90% of the far left). Modern socialists are not fans of sending the unproductive off to the gulags; they're fans of subsidizing them.

Re: Are Socialists Really Collectivistic?
 

I suppose I can't argue with HMK's first point, that liberal seek to help people one at a time rather than all at once. However, it is a mistake to think we are focused solely on the poor. Liberals favor government involvement in areas like health care, education and mass transit that benefit everyone. We believe that government is a force for good in the world and can improve the lives of everyone.

To torture HMK's anatomy analogy, the body devotes significant resources to repairing damaged cells: whether its providing amino acids to repair damaged nucleotides or white blood cells to protect them from bacteria, significant resources are devoted to keeping cells healthy. The body does not kill cells just because they are imperfect or damaged.

The point of modern liberalism is not to keep people alive regardless of their contribution to society, it is to make as many people as possible productive. Someone who is not healthy will not be productive. Someone who cannot get to a job will not be productive. Someone who doesn't have the skills that employers need will not be productive. This is what liberalism provides: the tools that people can not or do not provide themselves to lead productive lives.

Re: Are Socialists Really Collectivistic?
 

[ QUOTE ]
The point of modern liberalism is not to keep people alive regardless of their contribution to society, it is to make as many people as possible productive.

[/ QUOTE ]

*stare*

I have no idea how I am supposed to respond to this one.

Re: Are Socialists Really Collectivistic?
 

[ QUOTE ]

The point of modern liberalism is not to keep people alive regardless of their contribution to society, it is to make as many people as possible productive.

[/ QUOTE ]

In my experience in working within the government systsem I would say that nothing could be further from the truth. Entitlement programs do exactly the opposite, they make people unproductive.

Re: Are Socialists Really Collectivistic?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The point of modern liberalism is not to keep people alive regardless of their contribution to society, it is to make as many people as possible productive.

[/ QUOTE ]

*stare*

I have no idea how I am supposed to respond to this one.

[/ QUOTE ]

Iron,

I could wave a magic wand and claim that the purpose of my new policy is to make my dick 3 inches bigger. But if there's no reason to suspect that would actually work, then that isn't the real point.

It's nice that you want as many people as possible to be productive though. I guess this is fodder for hmk's "misguided" claim.

Re: Are Socialists Really Collectivistic?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

The point of modern liberalism is not to keep people alive regardless of their contribution to society, it is to make as many people as possible productive.

[/ QUOTE ]

In my experience in working within the government systsem I would say that nothing could be further from the truth. Entitlement programs do exactly the opposite, they make people unproductive.

[/ QUOTE ]

In the context of this discussion, the effectiveness of the programs is somewhate irrelevant. hmk is making claims as to the motives/objectives of modern liberals. To the extent that the programs work or fail does not change the intended purpose. To use the design flaws of social programs to denounce the intent of the social programs is analagous to saying "Brakes on cars aren't really meant to stop cars. How do I know? Sometimes the brakes fail."

Re: Are Socialists Really Collectivistic?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The point of modern liberalism is not to keep people alive regardless of their contribution to society, it is to make as many people as possible productive.

[/ QUOTE ]

*stare*

I have no idea how I am supposed to respond to this one.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's because it runs against your fundamental view of maximizing social utility. As you've shown in many of your posts, you believe that society is most efficiently run when people are most highly incentivized to work hard and produce value. To the modern liberal, the perspective is that all the incentive in the world to generate value for society is irrelevant when the opportunity to contribute is not there. Social programs are not intended to "pay off" people who are lazy or crazy. Redistribution of wealth is not intended to reward people who set piles of money on fire and therefore end up poor. The intent of social programs is to provide ample opportunity for everyone to contribute to the society/economy in the future.

You can argue that the programs are not designed properly.

You can argue that the natural competitive forces will create opportunity without the guiding hand of a liberal government.

You can argue that the rewards to the voluntarily unproductive exceed the value created by making more opportunities.

But you can't say modern liberals want what is worse for the collective because they prop up the least productive individuals in the collective. You may be able to convince yourself that the net effect of the social programs is to reduce productivity. But you are completely ignoring that social programs create opportunities for productivity where they otherwise may not exist.

Re: Are Socialists Really Collectivistic?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The point of modern liberalism is not to keep people alive regardless of their contribution to society, it is to make as many people as possible productive.

[/ QUOTE ]

*stare*

I have no idea how I am supposed to respond to this one.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's because it runs against your fundamental view of maximizing social utility.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, it's because it is demonstrably false by science and common sense. If you genuinely believe that paying someone not to work will make them work more, I can't have a serious discussion with you.

Take a course on human behavior and/or human learning. You will be amazed by how Pavlovian it is. 100% of my Birkenstock-wearing, liberal hippie big state university psychology professors agreed to the paradigm that individuals, alone, act for self-motivated reasons, and that basic learning is shaped by self-internalized consequences.

something to think about.....
 

....by reallocating the resources that benefit society now to help some who are suffering now will be neutralized by the further limitations faced by future sufferers which are more so inevitable under such a reallocation scheme.

Re: Are Socialists Really Collectivistic?
 

[ QUOTE ]
No, it's because it is demonstrably false by science and common sense. If you genuinely believe that paying someone not to work will make them work more, I can't have a serious discussion with you.

[/ QUOTE ]

If the depth of your understanding of liberal democratic theory and agenda is "They want to provide universal unemployment insurance at all costs." then you will obviously arise at erroneous conclusions. What are you really trying to get at here? You've distilled the entire theory of liberalism (modern liberalism, not laissez-faire old school liberalism) into a single provocative one-liner. This is supposed to make us all rethink liberalism?

I understand the thrust of your core argument: Securing people so that they are assured minimal levels of income will create a moral hazard where some people will choose not to produce as much as they otherwise would since they are satisfied with the minimal income. Of course this is so.

Now, you JUMP from there to "this is bad for society as a whole because it reduces contributions to society". This is not true due to "common sense" unless you think that social programs add no value and only incur the moral hazard cost above. You have provided no argument to back up this assertion other than this gem:

[ QUOTE ]
Take a course on human behavior and/or human learning. You will be amazed by how Pavlovian it is.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh yes! The invincible "If you don't agree with me it's because you're too dumb to understand why what I'm saying is true!" approach. An oldie but a goodie.

[ QUOTE ]
100% of my Birkenstock-wearing, liberal hippie big state university psychology professors agreed to the paradigm that individuals, alone, act for self-motivated reasons, and that basic learning is shaped by self-internalized consequences.

[/ QUOTE ]

So, obviously if you give some poor people some money they will immediately "waste" it on self-motivated consumption. Or would they consider the potential benefits of using that wealth to increase their future productivity and enhance their socio-economic status? Is self-motivation limited to luxury consumption in your world view? If people act in their own self interest, is it necessarily to the detriment of society as a whole?

Re: Are Socialists Really Collectivistic?
 

[ QUOTE ]

Now, you JUMP from there to "this is bad for society as a whole because it reduces contributions to society". This is not true due to "common sense" unless you think that social programs add no value and only incur the moral hazard cost above.

[/ QUOTE ]

Please read one of the many posts that I, borodog, nielsio, pvn et al have posted on the subject of what subjective value is. I'm not going to re-write <u>Man, Economy and the State</u> every time I want to say something about economics.

[ QUOTE ]
Oh yes! The invincible "If you don't agree with me it's because you're too dumb to understand why what I'm saying is true!" approach. An oldie but a goodie.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm notifying Iron about this. This is a personal attack, and it's not even the right one.

Re: Are Socialists Really Collectivistic?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Now, you JUMP from there to "this is bad for society as a whole because it reduces contributions to society". This is not true due to "common sense" unless you think that social programs add no value and only incur the moral hazard cost above.

[/ QUOTE ]

Please read one of the many posts that I, borodog, nielsio, pvn et al have posted on the subject of what subjective value is. I'm not going to re-write <u>Man, Economy and the State</u> every time I want to say something about economics.

[/ QUOTE ]

You go much, much farther than those three in terms of claiming utilitarian advantages of anarcho-capitalism. pvn and Nielsio, in particular, spend much more time discussing the moral injustice of involuntary transactions, with no regard to the "social utility" component of free market politics. Your post here relies heavily on social Darwinism concepts that are certainly not supported by all ACists on this board.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Oh yes! The invincible "If you don't agree with me it's because you're too dumb to understand why what I'm saying is true!" approach. An oldie but a goodie.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm notifying Iron about this. This is a personal attack, and it's not even the right one.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think so. I think dismissing counterarguments as uninformed is more of a personal attack. If you want to make a provocative anti-liberal post and bask in the applause of your fellow AC posters, you should (IMO) be prepared to respond to criticism from the other side. You can just ignore me if you prefer, that's your prerogative.

Re: Are Socialists Really Collectivistic?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Most socialists that I have spoken with do not actually act with society, as a whole, in mind. Rather, they see the forest for the trees. Most social goals are done with individuals, namely the disadvantaged, in mind. The ends are geared toward helping specific individuals, not the entire social economy.

[/ QUOTE ]

what about goals towards the environment?

edit: and what about goals like social diversity etc.?

Re: Are Socialists Really Collectivistic?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Most socialists that I have spoken with do not actually act with society, as a whole, in mind. Rather, they see the forest for the trees. Most social goals are done with individuals, namely the disadvantaged, in mind. The ends are geared toward helping specific individuals, not the entire social economy.

[/ QUOTE ]

For most, I'm sure, whether it's explicitly stated or not, the idea is that we're all better off if none of us have to suffer (or fear) the more extreme forms of poverty. Somewhat differently, one could make a utilitarian argument that hinges on diminishing returns: transferring $1000 from a wealthy family to an impoverished one helps the recipients more than it harms the givers.

Either way, it's a matter of helping the entire "social economy," not just certain individuals.

[ QUOTE ]
Almost every cell in a healthy body is a boon to the rest of the cells (and naturally for the rest of the body). We would view a living cell as a generally good thing. However, when a cell becomes dysfunctional and cannot serve its purpose, the behavior taken toward it is extremely un-socialistic. The cell is left to die, devoured by phagocytes, removed from the system, and terminated so that it does not pose a threat to the body.

[/ QUOTE ]

Damaged or unproductive cells do not possess sentience or moral standing. The "society as organism" metaphor can be kinda fun, but it fails in this and a thousand other ways.

Re: Are Socialists Really Collectivistic?
 

[ QUOTE ]
I suppose I can't argue with HMK's first point, that liberal seek to help people one at a time rather than all at once. However, it is a mistake to think we are focused solely on the poor. Liberals favor government involvement in areas like health care, education and mass transit that benefit everyone. We believe that government is a force for good in the world and can improve the lives of everyone.

To torture HMK's anatomy analogy, the body devotes significant resources to repairing damaged cells: whether its providing amino acids to repair damaged nucleotides or white blood cells to protect them from bacteria, significant resources are devoted to keeping cells healthy. The body does not kill cells just because they are imperfect or damaged.

The point of modern liberalism is not to keep people alive regardless of their contribution to society, it is to make as many people as possible productive. Someone who is not healthy will not be productive. Someone who cannot get to a job will not be productive. Someone who doesn't have the skills that employers need will not be productive. This is what liberalism provides: the tools that people can not or do not provide themselves to lead productive lives.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just to pick a nit, this is pretty much all wrong, at least as a general principle. The standard response to even mildly damaged cells is to induce apoptosis, clear the dead cell and debris, and make a new cell. Our bodies really do NOT spend considerable effort repairing broken cells. Far more economical to just make more and eliminate the trouble-makers.

Not sure what that does to your analogy, but it doesn't seem like anything good.

Re: Are Socialists Really Collectivistic?
 

Most socialists I've met espouse the whole "Gaia" argument, that argues capitalism forms institutions and man-made innovations into an "unnatural" category that debases some aspect of the ideal individuals' humanity, as opposed to the more "natural" order of things (which only they know, of course). This view probably has arose because "inequality" itself can't be the single justification anymore, as global warming (which I believe is happening BTW) rather than collectivism is politically in vogue.