11 ms·

The "dose" argument in the article is also rather unconvincing, and the examples used show this. I suppose this is a topic where I know something (capitalism an

The "dose" argument in the article is also rather unconvincing, and the examples used show this. I suppose this is a topic where I know something (capitalism and socialism). The author writes: > Capitalism is enormously productive but has many limitations. Some socialist institutions actually work well in a capitalist economy, but pure socialism hasn’t tended to work at all. But this is actually a counter-example. Most socialists (and certainly all of the originators and main theorists) would contend that socialism represents a pure qualitative break with capitalism, that socialism is at odds with capitalism in many ways (law of value, commodity production, class society) and that to speak of implementing "socialist policies" is worse than meaningless, it is a misunderstanding. They have some good reasons to say that socialism represents such a qualitative break with capitalism. So from my point of view, you can start out thinking "gray" (most people uninformed on the scholarly work on the difference between capitalism and socialism take the point of view of the article) but when you look further, you actually see that it's black and white. This example, at least, undermined the author's point. "Quantitative scale-based thinking" means that quality rarely enters the mix (except, perplexingly, in the example that "trying heroin once is bad"). Quantitative thinking is not always a perfect fit, because (1) it assumes the object under investigation is quantifiable, (2) it assumes the object is mathematically and formal-logically comparable, (3) quantitative models often simplify beyond how a qualitative model would (as an example, Samuelson's "commodity 1" and "commodity 2", or the presumption that inputs=outputs in Steedman). Qualitative and quantitative thinking are both important, and the preference for quantitative over qualitative has become increasingly common; as a famous German economist once pointed out (in the criticism of Bentham's utilitarianism), quality logically preceeds quantity. If you don't know what you're talking about, its measurement will be a lot more difficult. This is the same argument levelled at Ricardo (the confusion of form, substance and magnitude into one monstrous mess).

platz 7y ago
It appears you would reject the premise of running a co-op in a capitalist society because it does not start from a fundamentally pure starting position, or alternatively such a co-op is really a capitalist entity for the same reason and so pursuring such an entity is not a concern of socalists but rather capitalists.
- claudiawerner 7y ago
  >It appears you would reject the premise of running a co-op in a capitalist society because it does not start from a fundamentally pure starting position No, not at all. In fact, I support local co-ops. My (and Marx's) only contention is that it is not sufficient to call this "socialism" or "socialism within capitalism", or "a socialist part of capitalism" because socialism is by definition the ending of the specific historical production of commodities and class society. A co-op is an admirable thing to run, but it's not "socialism".
  - mnowicki 7y ago
    The author probably wasn't using the word 'socialism' in the technically correct way that you've explained, If you just take it for what he meant though then I think his point still stands
  - platz 7y ago
    So, you just want to have a semantics debate then, about who gets to define what certain terms mean. That's admirable, but I'm not sure is what OP's article is really about.
    - claudiawerner 7y ago
      No. My point of dispute is that "socialism" is qualitatively different (in actual substance, not just terminology) from "social democracy", that "social democracy" does not answer to what "socialism" is. To my understanding, the author is using the word "socialism" to refer to what I am using it to refer to, but misunderstanding it.
      - platz 7y ago
        I can generally agree that the author may be misunderstanding or misusing it here, yes
barrkel 7y ago
Hang on, capitalism is also a social system. It depends on social institutions like property rights, the rule of law, and under most reasonable assumptions, a state with a monopoly on violence. Socialism more generally considers other social constructs to even out extreme outcomes which might otherwise occur in a pure market.
reggieband 7y ago
You hit on some good points and it spurred my thought to his definition of grey. To have a concept of grey you really need a black and a white. You need to define the polls of your continuum. That implies some set of functions that transforms over the continuum. Compared to defining your polls and choosing your transformation functions .... I'm not sure selecting one grey over another really has the same impact. For some reason this makes me think of Hegel and dialectical (subjects I have limited understanding of). I also agree that quantitative reasoning has usurped qualitative reasoning and this might be due to quantitative reasoning actually being easier. If you define a scale with which to measure then it is really just a matter of defining how you score something, gathering the inputs and turning a crank to get to an answer. IMO, choosing the scale (and maybe to a less extent the scoring mechanism) seems to be the truly difficult part of the puzzle.
- abernard1 7y ago
  What exactly would the quantitative "score" be to measure between the qualitative systems of Capitalism and Socialism? Between Buddhism and Christianity? Between Keynesianism and Modern Monetary Theory? I would submit there isn't one. Furthermore any objective "facts" useful for such a metric have some basis on one theory or interpretation or another. The article says: > This is why quantitative and scale-based thinking is so important. But most don’t realize that quantitative thinking isn’t really about math; it’s about the idea that The dose makes the poison. To adopt their words in response to your comment, what exactly is the numerical "dose" between qualitatively different systems? Could one have identical numerical "doses" in different combinations of those systems? It's a useless, reductionist, and counterproductive way of thinking in my opinion.
  - mnowicki 7y ago
    > What exactly would the quantitative "score" be to measure between the qualitative systems of Capitalism and Socialism? Between Buddhism and Christianity? Between Keynesianism and Modern Monetary Theory? The depends on the question. You can compare Buddhism and Christianity in many ways, each with their own score. Are you saying 'which one is better for humanity'? Or 'which one will make my stoner friends think I'm rad?'? if you were to compare which one has done more good/bad for humanity, than the score would be how much good or bad each one has done for humanity. You may say Buddhism improves the lives of it's adherents about twice as much as christianity on average. But Christianity has 20x as many adherents. But but Christianity is responsible for 10000x more deaths... etc. Then you just need to decide on the value of 'improving a persons life X amount' compared to 'killing X number of people' and do the math. Of course, you typically don't get to the level of assigning numerical values to human life when forming your opinions most of the time. That's just the explanation of how these things are quantitatively 'scored' to try and answer your question - in practice it's a much more guesstimation-based system.
username90 7y ago
> Most socialists (and certainly all of the originators and main theorists) would contend that socialism represents a pure qualitative break with capitalism That's the kind of black and white thinking we need to do away with. "Purity" is fun for theorists to talk about but in practice we basically never want pure systems. Anyhow, how can capitalism and socialism coexists? Well, it already does! Every democracy which levies taxes to run shared services is partly socialist, since these means of production are jointly owned. You can even see the taxes as a way for the people to extract profits from every venture, for example in Sweden the state spends around 50% of GDP so it already owns 50% of everything even if the papers says otherwise, you can't come and say that something which can extract 50% of all value from something doesn't really own it! And every country where you can start, run and profit from companies are partly capitalist. Hence all western nations are partly socialist and partly capitalist. They are on different parts of this spectrum. For example, most roads are socialist, you don't have to pay to drive on them even though they cost a lot of money. Very few argue that we need less socialist roads and more capitalist roads with toll booths.
- claudiawerner 7y ago
  >Anyhow, how can capitalism and socialism coexists? Well, it already does! No (well, "no" from the point of view of scholars of socialism, whose opinion as experts on the topic matters more). Taxes are not "socialist", because "socialism" does not mean a safety net within capitalism. Means of production, as they are spoken of by philosophers, cannot be said to be "jointly owned"[0]. >Sweden the state spends around 50% of GDP so it already owns 50% of everything even if the papers says otherwise, you can't come and say that something which can extract 50% of all value from something doesn't really own it! These do not count as productive capacity, but as help for workers, even if they were monetary equivalents (quantitatively), they are not qualitatively the same thing. In fact, one of the problems in the theory of exploitation is the question of whether someone who earns a very high income can be said to be "exploited". The compensation, it is held, is not (or less) relevant than the share of productive resources. >For example, most roads are socialist, you don't have to pay to drive on them even though they cost a lot of money. Socialism isn't about "fairness" or getting something back from the state[1]. Rather, it's about "class society". I don't mean to argue for or against socialism, but it's important to get the views right. Social safety nets are a social democratic measure within capitalist society. They are "social" but not socialist. Taxes existed in Marx's time (in some cases, higher than what we have now) - nevertheless, Marx called for the establishment of "socialism". Simple redistribution is not the socialist paradigm, except in rare incarnations. [0] One of the conditions outlined by Roemer, as quoted in SEP: "If S were to withdraw from the society, endowed with its per capita share of society’s alienable property (that is, produced and nonproduced goods), and with its own labor and skills, then S would be better off (in terms of income and leisure) than it is at the present allocation." [1] "What is "a fair distribution"? Do not the bourgeois assert that the present-day distribution is "fair"? And is it not, in fact, the only "fair" distribution on the basis of the present-day mode of production? Are economic relations regulated by legal conceptions, or do not, on the contrary, legal relations arise out of economic ones? Have not also the socialist sectarians the most varied notions about "fair" distribution?" (Marx, Critique of the Gotha Program, 1875)

platz 7y ago

It appears you would reject the premise of running a co-op in a capitalist society because it does not start from a fundamentally pure starting position, or alternatively such a co-op is really a capitalist entity for the same reason and so pursuring such an entity is not a concern of socalists but rather capitalists.

claudiawerner 7y ago
>It appears you would reject the premise of running a co-op in a capitalist society because it does not start from a fundamentally pure starting position No, not at all. In fact, I support local co-ops. My (and Marx's) only contention is that it is not sufficient to call this "socialism" or "socialism within capitalism", or "a socialist part of capitalism" because socialism is by definition the ending of the specific historical production of commodities and class society. A co-op is an admirable thing to run, but it's not "socialism".
- mnowicki 7y ago
  The author probably wasn't using the word 'socialism' in the technically correct way that you've explained, If you just take it for what he meant though then I think his point still stands
- platz 7y ago
  So, you just want to have a semantics debate then, about who gets to define what certain terms mean. That's admirable, but I'm not sure is what OP's article is really about.
  - claudiawerner 7y ago
    No. My point of dispute is that "socialism" is qualitatively different (in actual substance, not just terminology) from "social democracy", that "social democracy" does not answer to what "socialism" is. To my understanding, the author is using the word "socialism" to refer to what I am using it to refer to, but misunderstanding it.
    - platz 7y ago
      I can generally agree that the author may be misunderstanding or misusing it here, yes

barrkel 7y ago

Hang on, capitalism is also a social system. It depends on social institutions like property rights, the rule of law, and under most reasonable assumptions, a state with a monopoly on violence. Socialism more generally considers other social constructs to even out extreme outcomes which might otherwise occur in a pure market.

reggieband 7y ago

You hit on some good points and it spurred my thought to his definition of grey. To have a concept of grey you really need a black and a white. You need to define the polls of your continuum. That implies some set of functions that transforms over the continuum. Compared to defining your polls and choosing your transformation functions .... I'm not sure selecting one grey over another really has the same impact. For some reason this makes me think of Hegel and dialectical (subjects I have limited understanding of). I also agree that quantitative reasoning has usurped qualitative reasoning and this might be due to quantitative reasoning actually being easier. If you define a scale with which to measure then it is really just a matter of defining how you score something, gathering the inputs and turning a crank to get to an answer. IMO, choosing the scale (and maybe to a less extent the scoring mechanism) seems to be the truly difficult part of the puzzle.

abernard1 7y ago
What exactly would the quantitative "score" be to measure between the qualitative systems of Capitalism and Socialism? Between Buddhism and Christianity? Between Keynesianism and Modern Monetary Theory? I would submit there isn't one. Furthermore any objective "facts" useful for such a metric have some basis on one theory or interpretation or another. The article says: > This is why quantitative and scale-based thinking is so important. But most don’t realize that quantitative thinking isn’t really about math; it’s about the idea that The dose makes the poison. To adopt their words in response to your comment, what exactly is the numerical "dose" between qualitatively different systems? Could one have identical numerical "doses" in different combinations of those systems? It's a useless, reductionist, and counterproductive way of thinking in my opinion.
- mnowicki 7y ago
  > What exactly would the quantitative "score" be to measure between the qualitative systems of Capitalism and Socialism? Between Buddhism and Christianity? Between Keynesianism and Modern Monetary Theory? The depends on the question. You can compare Buddhism and Christianity in many ways, each with their own score. Are you saying 'which one is better for humanity'? Or 'which one will make my stoner friends think I'm rad?'? if you were to compare which one has done more good/bad for humanity, than the score would be how much good or bad each one has done for humanity. You may say Buddhism improves the lives of it's adherents about twice as much as christianity on average. But Christianity has 20x as many adherents. But but Christianity is responsible for 10000x more deaths... etc. Then you just need to decide on the value of 'improving a persons life X amount' compared to 'killing X number of people' and do the math. Of course, you typically don't get to the level of assigning numerical values to human life when forming your opinions most of the time. That's just the explanation of how these things are quantitatively 'scored' to try and answer your question - in practice it's a much more guesstimation-based system.

username90 7y ago

> Most socialists (and certainly all of the originators and main theorists) would contend that socialism represents a pure qualitative break with capitalism That's the kind of black and white thinking we need to do away with. "Purity" is fun for theorists to talk about but in practice we basically never want pure systems. Anyhow, how can capitalism and socialism coexists? Well, it already does! Every democracy which levies taxes to run shared services is partly socialist, since these means of production are jointly owned. You can even see the taxes as a way for the people to extract profits from every venture, for example in Sweden the state spends around 50% of GDP so it already owns 50% of everything even if the papers says otherwise, you can't come and say that something which can extract 50% of all value from something doesn't really own it! And every country where you can start, run and profit from companies are partly capitalist. Hence all western nations are partly socialist and partly capitalist. They are on different parts of this spectrum. For example, most roads are socialist, you don't have to pay to drive on them even though they cost a lot of money. Very few argue that we need less socialist roads and more capitalist roads with toll booths.

claudiawerner 7y ago
>Anyhow, how can capitalism and socialism coexists? Well, it already does! No (well, "no" from the point of view of scholars of socialism, whose opinion as experts on the topic matters more). Taxes are not "socialist", because "socialism" does not mean a safety net within capitalism. Means of production, as they are spoken of by philosophers, cannot be said to be "jointly owned"[0]. >Sweden the state spends around 50% of GDP so it already owns 50% of everything even if the papers says otherwise, you can't come and say that something which can extract 50% of all value from something doesn't really own it! These do not count as productive capacity, but as help for workers, even if they were monetary equivalents (quantitatively), they are not qualitatively the same thing. In fact, one of the problems in the theory of exploitation is the question of whether someone who earns a very high income can be said to be "exploited". The compensation, it is held, is not (or less) relevant than the share of productive resources. >For example, most roads are socialist, you don't have to pay to drive on them even though they cost a lot of money. Socialism isn't about "fairness" or getting something back from the state[1]. Rather, it's about "class society". I don't mean to argue for or against socialism, but it's important to get the views right. Social safety nets are a social democratic measure within capitalist society. They are "social" but not socialist. Taxes existed in Marx's time (in some cases, higher than what we have now) - nevertheless, Marx called for the establishment of "socialism". Simple redistribution is not the socialist paradigm, except in rare incarnations. [0] One of the conditions outlined by Roemer, as quoted in SEP: "If S were to withdraw from the society, endowed with its per capita share of society’s alienable property (that is, produced and nonproduced goods), and with its own labor and skills, then S would be better off (in terms of income and leisure) than it is at the present allocation." [1] "What is "a fair distribution"? Do not the bourgeois assert that the present-day distribution is "fair"? And is it not, in fact, the only "fair" distribution on the basis of the present-day mode of production? Are economic relations regulated by legal conceptions, or do not, on the contrary, legal relations arise out of economic ones? Have not also the socialist sectarians the most varied notions about "fair" distribution?" (Marx, Critique of the Gotha Program, 1875)