A model society

[munnki]

In a recent post it occured to me to think about Marx's famous dictum

From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.

This quote has been used either to illustrate the fundamental flaw in the Marxian model or to underline its highest ideal. Indeed, the Marxian philosopher, Max Horkheimer, famously pointed out the tragic flaw contained within Marxism - that society is in a dialectic between freedom and justice - it is impossible, at a pure level, to have a just and free society.

In this thread I'd like to discuss that idea - and I realise there are no ultimate answers to the question but I think certain contemporary debates have forced us to ask ourselves questions about what we model our ideal society on.

On the one hand, there is the socialist/Marxist model - which desires a redistributive society in which people participate wholly for the common good and in which equality of means is stressed. It is obvious that experiments with this model have succeeded in some ways and failed in others. Critics of the model, particularly those like Friedman, have argued, with no little success, that it breeds stagnation and mediocrity. It has also been argued that without the incentives of the Capitalist model that progress is halted or stilted - this is a more controversial argument but it has some basis in fact.

On the other hand, there is the Capitalist/free market model - which desires a society free from governmental restraints (except those minimally required for a well-functioning society) and a society which stresses the individual over the group. It is equally obvious that this model is hugely problematic because, at a pure level, it ignores what seem to some to be truths about our nature as a species and it also idealises people as concerned only with self-interest. Critics of this model have argued that it breeds inequality and that the profit motive, in fact, results in unneccessary fetishism and incredible waste. It has also been argued that without the safety checks of those things which are socialised within Capitalist societies that what results is not far from feudalist and exclusionary - this is also a controversial argument but factual study can also be appealed to.

So, where do we position ourselves in this continuum? It might be useful to think about countries which you think have a well-functioning system, the current debates on healthcare vs. cost, the failure of some communist systems, the alienation and inequality produced by capitalist systems, the idealisms of both the right and left vs. the actual on-the-ground conditions.

What system should we be working towards? What worked?

[DMB]

I tend to look at things like this from an evolutionary perspective. It is noteworthy that civilisation is a very recent innovation in our evolutionary history. Models like the ones you have cited are theoretical ones (although that is more true of Marxism than capitalism, because the latter evolved in an unstructured way).

The problems with all theoretical models is that they are obliged to simplify in order to come up with a coherent picture. One simplifies by deciding what are the essentials amd omitting everything else, and then that often results in throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

It's very hard for anyone to decide what the essentials are, because we are ourselves part of one system or another, and we make all kinds of unexpressed and unexamined assumptions. Certain practices and modes of thought just seem natural to us and we extrapolate from the particular to the general without realising we are doing it.

To take a simple example, until recently it seemed obvious that people's economic actions would be directed by self interest. One would normally act rationally to achieve the best possible outcome for oneself. But what would be the best outcome? It turns out that we and fellow primates often care more about perceived fairness than about any improvement in overall outcome. We may be completely content with being paid $20 for something provided everyone else gets the same, but are discontented if we get $20 and someone else $40, and may even prefer getting nothing at all.

So what has seemed to be rational sef-interest to an economist has been defective in taking account of our evolved nature.

Another complication is that we are social animals who have evolved to live in smallish groups (of perhaps 200) where we can know and interact with everyone else. Nothing has prepared us for living in huge groupings of thousands or millions of people. We are not capable of reacting in the same way to people we know and people we don't. Even the most depraved murdering dictators are likely to have warm feelings towards some members of their families or their dogs.

[munnki]

I agree with much of what you're saying DMB - this is an issue with more grey than black or white. But I think there's some consensus in saying that this was the great philsophical debate of the twentieth century and that the major theme was the dialectic between the socialist model and the capitalist model.

If I think of key texts that underline the universality of this debate then I might consider:

Karl Marx - Das Kapital
Karl Marx/Friedrich Engels - The Communist Manifesto
J. M. Keynes - The Economic Consequences of the Peace/Economic Theory
V. I. Lenin - The April Theses
A. Hitler - Meine Kampf
Ludwig Von Mises - Socialism: An Economic and Sociological Analysis/Liberalism
M. T. Tsung - On Practice/Little Red Book
W. Benjamin - The Work of Art In The Age of Reproduction
K. Popper - The Open Society and Its Enemies I&II
Ayn Rand - Atlas Shrugged
F. Hayek - The Road To Serfdom
Milton Friedman - Capitalism and Freedom
H. Marcuse - On Liberation/One Dimensional Man
L. Althusser - Contradiction and Overdetermination/For Marx
T. Adorno/M. Horkheimer - The Dialectic of Enlightenment
M. Gorbachev - Perestroika: New Thinking for Our Country and the World
F. Fukuyama - The End of History and the Last Man/After The Neo-Cons
S. Zizek - Welcome To The Desert of The Real/The Parallax View
N. Kleine - No Logo/The Shock Doctrine

To list but a tiny few - and doubtless many key texts have been excluded.

To me, the history of the twentieth century is a history of this debate - consider some key twentieth century events:

1917 The Russian Revolution
1927-1950 The Chinese Civil War
1933-1944 Nazi Party dominate Germany with anti-Marxist campaigns
1945 Founding of the NHS/Marshall Plan in Europe
1945-1989 Iron Curtain drawn across Europe - Eastern part of Mainland now Stalinist-Marxist
1950-1953 The Korean War
1959-1975 The Vietnam War
1975-1979 Cambodia/Khmer Rouge dominate until liberation by the Vietnamese
1979-1989 Soviet War in Afghanisthan
1979/80-1988/90 Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher elected as leaders in UK and USA
1986-1989 M. Gorbachev Policy of Perestroika takes hold in USSR
1989-1995 Breakdown of communist states in Eastern Europe/Fall of Berlin Wall/Reunification of Germany
1989 Publication of Fukuyama - End of History and the Last Man
1998- Hugo Chavez elected president of Venezuela
2000-2008 Vladimir Putin elected president of Russia

Again, skipping a huge range of events - this has been a truly global debate. I would argue, the key debate of the twentieth century...

[DMB]

Umm, but the 20th century is behind us. Time to move on?

If you think those were the key debates of the 20th century, it's a pity that the debates so often resulted in mess and misery.

[munnki]

Umm, but the 20th century is behind us. Time to move on?

If you think those were the key debates of the 20th century, it's a pity that the debates so often resulted in mess and misery.

Well, this century is young and I think people are still having these discussions. I think the rhetoric surrounding the healthcare debate has illustrated that. It's not me, as such, it's what is being said and thought about. It's what I detect is lying behind much contemporary political and philosophical debate.

And yes, being the great debate of the twenieth century, it was also its largest killer by a very long way indeed.

[Preno]

This quote has been used either to illustrate the fundamental flaw in the Marxian model or to underline its highest ideal. Indeed, the Marxian philosopher, Maxim Horkheimer, famously pointed out the tragic flaw contained within Marxism - that society is in a dialectic between freedom and justice - it is impossible, at a pure level, to have a just and free society.How is that a "flaw contained within Marxism" rather than a fact that every political philosophy needs to address?
On the one hand, there is the socialist/Marxist model - which desires a redistributive society in which people participate wholly for the common good and in which equality of means is stressed.You seem to be conflating socialism and communism. Socialism in no way expects people to "participate wholly for the common good". In fact, economic systems which do are evidently utopian.

[Alex]

I haven't read any of Maxim Horkheimer's works: in fact I've never even heard of him. Does your question ask us to consider whether a society with a capitalist economy is preferable to socialism and to give reasons for our preference? Or are the moral considerations on which the constitution of an "ideal society" might be devised, what you have in mind?

You've already roughly outlined some features of socialist and capitalist models, and asked where we place ourselves on that continuum. Doesn't that question presuppose we have already answered prior questions about of the nature of man, and our answers have suggested the best political arrangements for maximizing human happiness?

[munnki]

This quote has been used either to illustrate the fundamental flaw in the Marxian model or to underline its highest ideal. Indeed, the Marxian philosopher, Maxim Horkheimer, famously pointed out the tragic flaw contained within Marxism - that society is in a dialectic between freedom and justice - it is impossible, at a pure level, to have a just and free society.How is that a "flaw contained within Marxism" rather than a fact that every political philosophy needs to address?
On the one hand, there is the socialist/Marxist model - which desires a redistributive society in which people participate wholly for the common good and in which equality of means is stressed.You seem to be conflating socialism and communism. Socialism in no way expects people to "participate wholly for the common good". In fact, economic systems which do are evidently utopian.


True. I suppose I meant that Marxism is very explicitly idealistic in its goals for society and I think that Horkheimer was stating that perhaps Marx had not given that enough thought and, of course, had not lived to see the experiments that would occur in the name of his philosophy.

Yes, I am mixing up socialism and communism - but I am doing so because the early literature frequently calls the two by the same name. I hope that my meaning is clear from the context and will review what I have said.

[munnki]

I haven't read any of Maxim Horkheimer's works: in fact I've never even heard of him. Does your question ask us to consider whether a society with a capitalist economy is preferable to socialism and to give reasons for our preference? Or are the moral considerations on which the constitution of an "ideal society" might be devised, what you have in mind?

You've already roughly outlined some features of socialist and capitalist models, and asked where we place ourselves on that continuum. Doesn't that question presuppose we have already answered prior questions about of the nature of man, and our answers have suggested the best political arrangements for maximizing human happiness?

I have indeed previously asked those questions and many people did comment on their viewpoints. I suppose I'm just trying to generate a discussion that fleshes out those things in greater depth but also has people mention the philosophical underpinnings of their points of view. I don't know more about the topic nor have a preconceived idea of where (if anywhere it will go) I suppose I just thought it merited further discussion.

Max Horkheimer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Horkheimer) (sorry the Maxim was a typo - corrected now above) was one of the Frankfurt School philosophers/social theorists. He wrote a range of different texts the most interesting, in my opinion, dealing with the limits of rationality and the concepts of objective, subjective and instrumental reason. The schools work is most interesting where it comments on contemporary culture and authoritarianism.

[muidiri]

In a recent post it occured to me to think about Marx's famous dictum

From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.

This quote has been used either to illustrate the fundamental flaw in the Marxian model or to underline its highest ideal. Indeed, the Marxian philosopher, Maxim Horkheimer, famously pointed out the tragic flaw contained within Marxism - that society is in a dialectic between freedom and justice - it is impossible, at a pure level, to have a just and free society.
:hmm: Hmm... I have nobody to quote here... but I would say it's more of a conflict between having an equal and free society. You can have justice under either approach, as justice is defined by the society itself, isn't it? But you can't simultaneously maximize both individual freedom and equality. One of them has to give at some point. Seems like Horkheimer is falsely equating justice with equality. Wouldn't that set up a false proposition (hopefully that's the right technical term for that part of an argument) that would skew any subsequent discussion and intrinsically define freedom as unjust? When in truth it's not necessarily unjust, but is certainly unequal.

In this thread I'd like to discuss that idea - and I realise there are no ultimate answers to the question but I think certain contemporary debates have forced us to ask ourselves questions about what we model our ideal society on.

<snipped for length>

What system should we be working towards? What worked?
Personally, I aim toward the ideal of individual freedom. Quite simply, I don't believe that people are all equal. Some people are better than others - at particular tasks, of course, but also simply better human beings. I value the scientist and the doctor far more than the pedophile and the rapist, and I simply don't believe that that they should all be treated with equal respect and value. Maybe that's cold of me, but I also think it's realistic.

I am, however, not an idiot ;). I know that complete freedom is unattainable. We're social creatures, and so long as interaction with others is necessary to our wellbeing, there will always be some sacrifice of personal freedom to ensure a better functioning group.

I think that opportunity ought to be equal for all people, but that outcomes should be primarily reflective of their individual endeavors. Some random luck certainly exists (people win the lottery after all), but I think that the majority of people's outcomes are the result of their own choices. So if you want to better the outcomes across the board, the solution isn't redistribution in my mind - it's education. Teach them to make better decisions and better choices, and their outcomes will (for the most part) improve as well.

When the approach to increasing equality is to redistribute the outcomes of endeavors, you don't fix the underlying problem. You simply give a man a fish. When you improve the decision making ability and the education, you're addressing the problem directly - you're teaching the man to fish.

So the short answer for me is that we should be aiming toward maximizing freedom, but should socialize education to provide the maximum possible equality of opportunity.

Aside: I'm not nearly as well read as you are. I've tried on occasion to read those sorts of textbooks, but I have a hard time with it - they bore me. I read for fun. The majority of my knowledge has been gleaned from discussions with other people, as well as through fiction and such. As a result, I'm bound to have some of it wrong. Please feel free to correct any of my misconceptions ;).

[DMB]

As I said earlier, there is a big difference between capitalism and socialism/Marxism. On the one hand we have a model that was formulated before very much in a practical approximation existed. On the other hand, we have a system that developed gradually over time with all sorts of local idiosyncrasies. Subsequently, theorists tried to produce an encompassing model to describe it. I think one can be a bit suspicious of the accuracy of the model. One comes across similar models of things like the feudal system. Living through the relevant times, no-one would have noticed the change from the "feudal system" to the "capitalist system".

And how much does "capitalist system" or "socialist system" really describe, say, Sweden? Can one characterise Sweden and the USA as being run under the same system? They have obvious differences and obvious similarities. And is socialism reallya kind of idelaism, or is it something to be imposed?

"From each according to his ability; to each according to his need" sounds superficially attractive. But are we talking about ethical ideals or the aims of an economic system? Who gets to judge the ability and the need? My dislike of too much socialism is the fear of a very nasty bureaucracy always supposing that they know better than the individual and imposing their judgment on others in a draconian manner. I am a liberal rather than a socialist because of that. I do value the human rights of the individual. Because we are a social animal, no man is an island. We live in groups and are dependent on others, so that none of us has total unfettered freedom, bt I want us to have as much as possible.

[Preno]

"From each according to his ability; to each according to his need" sounds superficially attractive.In what way does it sound superficially attractive? The one attractive aspect of it is the guarantee that everyone will have their needs filled. Since our needs are, in a modern society, capable of being more than amply fulfilled, it's either a fairly uncontroversial principle (everyone should have at least some minimal standard of living) or non-sense. The idea that there will be no differential no rewards corresponding to differentials in results or effort is self-evidently unfair and unworkable.
But are we talking about ethical ideals or the aims of an economic system? Who gets to judge the ability and the need? My dislike of too much socialism is the fear of a very nasty bureaucracy always supposing that they know better than the individual and imposing their judgment on others in a draconian manner.They know what better than the individual? That sounds like a nice slogan ("the individual knows better than a bureaucracy"), but when you attempt to decypher it, it unfolds into either incoherence or a falsehood.

The definition of socialism is the collective ownership of the means of production. That's that. So, in fact, the only relevant interpretation of "the individual knows better" seems to me to be: individuals know better how to allocate resources than a bureaucracy. Which certainly deserves some justification. If anything, it seems to be prima facie false - individuals in capitalism have only a limited and ineffective access to information about what people demand (each capitalist has to, for example, pay for their own market research, leading to an entirely unnecessary duplication of efforts, which however is inevitable under a competitive model). On the other hand, the state trivially has access to at least the same information (because, in the worst case, it could always use the same methods a capitalist uses), but in practice can be expected to have access to much more information and be more effective in using it to allocate resources. To put it in game-theoretic terms, a coalition trivially has at least the same options as a set of competitors, plus many others which are simply not accessible to a set of competitors.

eta: and that's excluding the fact that a socialist economy has the direct aim of fulfilling the citizen's economic demand, while a capitalist economy only fulfills this goal indirectly, via the people owning the means of production attempting to maximize their own profit, which in certain very ideal conditions may lead to a desirable outcome, but which in the real world very often does not. The various assumptions of perfect information and competition are made for the sake of mathematical convenience, not because they roughly correspond to the actual situation.

[Alex]

They know what better than the individual? That sounds like a nice slogan ("the individual knows better than a bureaucracy"), but when you attempt to decypher it, it unfolds into either incoherence or a falsehood.


I think what "they" are supposed to know better (meaning presumably the politicians, bureaucrats, etc.) than the individual, is the route to some sort of end state and perhaps the nature of the end state itself. Isn't the "ultimate" end state of all political and economic activity the satisfaction of human desires - i.e. maximum human happiness?

[Preno]

They know what better than the individual? That sounds like a nice slogan ("the individual knows better than a bureaucracy"), but when you attempt to decypher it, it unfolds into either incoherence or a falsehood.I think what "they" are supposed to know better (meaning presumably the politicians, bureaucrats, etc.) than the individual, is the route to some sort of end state and perhaps the nature of the end state itself. Isn't the "ultimate" end state of all political and economic activity the satisfaction of human desires - i.e. maximum human happiness?The satisfaction of human desires is a process, not an end state, and does not or certainly need not equal maximizing human happiness. There is no reason to postulate the existence of some sort of end state. Economically, for example, it would imply that no new products would be introduced and no inventions made - a highly implausible prospect, and one which state bureaucrats can hardly be expected to accomplish.

This sort of basically philosophical speculation can hardly be a basis of a sound economic policy.

[muidiri]

Isn't the "ultimate" end state of all political and economic activity the satisfaction of human desires - i.e. maximum human happiness?
Did anybody let the politicians know this? :p

[Alex]

The satisfaction of human desires is a process, not an end state, and does not or certainly need not equal maximizing human happiness. There is no reason to postulate the existence of some sort of end state. Economically, for example, it would imply that no new products would be introduced and no inventions made - a highly implausible prospect, and one which state bureaucrats can hardly be expected to accomplish.

This sort of basically philosophical speculation can hardly be a basis of a sound economic policy.
Utopia is an end state - it seems to me. Granted that very few political schemes for "making progress" etc., are utterly utopian in character, but I don't see the point of politics unless it has ideals. What "ultimate goal" would politicians disclose if pressed to the limit on their reasons for wanting power? If they all answered that they wanted to satisfy their own craving for power (which is probably true sometimes), there seems to be no point in talking about what we model an ideal society on.

[Preno]

The satisfaction of human desires is a process, not an end state, and does not or certainly need not equal maximizing human happiness. There is no reason to postulate the existence of some sort of end state. Economically, for example, it would imply that no new products would be introduced and no inventions made - a highly implausible prospect, and one which state bureaucrats can hardly be expected to accomplish.

This sort of basically philosophical speculation can hardly be a basis of a sound economic policy.
Utopia is an end state - it seems to me. Granted that very few political schemes for "making progress" etc., are utterly utopian in character, but I don't see the point of politics unless it has ideals. What "ultimate goal" would politicians disclose if pressed to the limit on their reasons for wanting power? If they all answered that they wanted to satisfy their own craving for power (which is probably true sometimes), there seems to be no point in talking about what we model an ideal society on.So in your view improvements or, to use your example, satisfying human desires are pointless unless they lead to some sort of "end state"? That's just absurd.

[DMB]

Preno, just how do you decide someon else's needs or their ability? I actually think it's the height of arrogance to suppose you can get it right. It's certainly true that individuals can confuse their desires with their needs, but in fact for a long time exactly this knowing what is best for others approach reigned supreme in considerations of animal welfare.

I must say that I found Marion Dawkins's experiments where she gave hens a choice, and they were prepared to choose dustbaths over food, quite counterintuitive. And I think that is the sort of result that most of us would have found surprising. And similarly, although most of us could probably come up with a list of people's needs, they wouldn't in fact have general application. A majority of people might prefer to be well-fed slaves than malnourished free agents, but there will alwys be a few who take the view "Give me liberty, or give me death."

And just as it is quite easy for bureaucrats to get people's needs wrong, so it is possible for them to get people's abilities wrong. John Tyler Bonner, the slime mould guy, told a silly little story about when he was called up into the Army in WW2. Bonner was already a university teacher and researcher. The chap doing the induction took details from everyone and assigned them accordingly. He asked Bonner what his civilian job was. Bonner told him he was a biologist. The chap had never heard of biologists, so he put him down as "unskilled".

OK. That may just be an odd little story, but that kind of misjudgment is common in bureaucracies, partly through inefficient management and partly through the fact that many of the people at the sharp end are underpaid and underskilled dorks.

I was a teacher in schools for quite a few years and I saw many examples of misjudgements of pupils' needs or abilities. It happens all the time, even if the people doing the judging are well-intentioned. It's for reasons like those that I mistrust the slogan. So many of these theoretical structures fail because the practicalities take people by surprise.

[Preno]

Preno, just how do you decide someon else's needs or their ability?I don't know and I'm not sure why you're asking me this. I don't espouse any such principle (other than in the uncontroversial sense that if possible, people should have certain basic needs - food and shelter - guaranteed by the society). You're the one who called it "superficially attractive".

[DMB]

Sorry. I misunderstood you then. I thought you were arguing for it.

[Preno]

No, I was arguing against your image of a "bureaucracy always supposing that they know better than the individual", which afaict is either meaningless or false. Again, knows what better than the individual?

[Celsus]

A simple problem with Marx's famous dictum is: What do you do with surplus? It seems under this model that the battle will be to define "need" in terms that are favourable to the individual. It fundamentally has a flawed conception of human nature - not because there's such a thing as a homogenous "human nature" but because it takes no account of self-interested action and the degree to which people will exploit what they can of a given system for personal advantage.

[muidiri]

Preno, just how do you decide someon else's needs or their ability?I don't know and I'm not sure why you're asking me this. I don't espouse any such principle (other than in the uncontroversial sense that if possible, people should have certain basic needs - food and shelter - guaranteed by the society). You're the one who called it "superficially attractive".

I always end up wondering why those basic needs ought to be supplied. Everything in nature must work in order to survive - wolves must hunt, bison must forage, squirrels must hide nuts to make it through the winter. Even plants must expend energy to grow their roots inorder to reach the required nutrients.

Yet as humans, you suggest that survival ought to be guaranteed by society... simply because they exist.

If adequate food, shelter, and health are guaranteed by society simply because you are human... what incentive is there to do anything other than simply survive? If the basic needs of existence are met with no effort on the part of the individual, why then should the individual put forth any effort? How do you protect against everyone accepting as their right the basics of survival, and putting forth no additional effort? Who then pays for those basic needs?

[Preno]

Preno, just how do you decide someon else's needs or their ability?I don't know and I'm not sure why you're asking me this. I don't espouse any such principle (other than in the uncontroversial sense that if possible, people should have certain basic needs - food and shelter - guaranteed by the society). You're the one who called it "superficially attractive".

I always end up wondering why those basic needs ought to be supplied. Everything in nature must work in order to survive - wolves must hunt, bison must forage, squirrels must hide nuts to make it through the winter. Even plants must expend energy to grow their roots inorder to reach the required nutrients.

Yet as humans, you suggest that survival ought to be guaranteed by society... simply because they exist.

If adequate food, shelter, and health are guaranteed by society simply because you are human... what incentive is there to do anything other than simply survive? If the basic needs of existence are met with no effort on the part of the individual, why then should the individual put forth any effort? How do you protect against everyone accepting as their right the basics of survival, and putting forth no additional effort? Who then pays for those basic needs?Well, if that happens, then obviously such a system would fail and we'd have to unguarantee those. Frankly, I'm not as attached to that as to the requirement that people have the chance to work under reasonable conditions and can afford to provide adequate food and shelter for an adequate amount of work. I'm pretty sure most people are willing to work in order to get above a basic subsistence level, but if it turns out that too much people would exploit the system, oh well, we'd have to get rid of it. Imo an affluent society can afford to guarantee a basic standard of living to its citizens, but if it turns out it can't, well, then it can't. That's really not the key concern here, it's just an option.

But while perhaps theoretically interesting, this is a red herring. People don't starve because they refuse to work.

[Alex]

The satisfaction of human dSo in your view improvements or, to use your example, satisfying human desires are pointless unless they lead to some sort of "end state"? That's just absurd.

You're either misrepresenting or misunderstanding what I'm trying to say.

When we cast our votes for a political party, in the democratic West, we will probably have immediate expediences in mind and also the hope that the administrative machine will be run more efficiently than would be the case if another lot were elected. (It's true that our most private motives are likely to be self-serving.)

However, some of us will also vote in hope of bringing a "superior" state of affairs into existence - perhaps a "liberal" society that will be more humane, equitable, and "civilized" than the one we have at present. Without this sort of goal, ideal, or end state, there is little more to politics than a scramble for power.

In my opinion, such a goal can be summarized as satisfying human needs and wants. There is a process of improvements towards the goal of content, but the state of being contented is final. What's "absurd" about that?

[DMB]

Preno, as with the experiment with hens that I mentioned and various other experiments with animals, the individual's judgements of needs may well differ from those deciding for them. To you, food and shelter may well be the most basic needs, and they are for most people, but there are a few who differ. The sentiments expressed in this poem:

http://www.poemhunter.com/poem/the-vagabond/

may be very rare, but they do exist. A few individuals do choose an intinerant life with no guarantee of food or shelter.

The trouble with bureaucracy is that it is likely to decided that food and shelter are the most basic needs for everyone.

[munnki]

Anybody seen the very funny Smurfs and Communism (http://munnki.blogspot.com/2007/10/article-deletion.html)stuff. It was an old wikipedia article that got deleted but I posted the full article on my blog. Extremely funny:


The Smurfs and Communism

There are many parallels between communist ideology and practices, and the economic and political system in The Smurfs, a popular comic book and animated series originally created by Belgian cartoonist Peyo.

Contents
1 History of the meme
2 Appearance
2.1 Papa and Brainy
2.2 Clothing
3 Analogy of capitalist forces
4 Economics
5 Culture
6 Criticism and difficulties with theory
7 Other circumstantial (or coincidental) points
8 Other parodies of Smurfs involving subliminal messages
8.1 Castle Smurfenstein
9 See also
10 Notes
11 References



History of the meme
The Smurf communism meme dates to at least 1992, as a soc.politics usenet post notes an essay on the subject circulating on the Internet.[1] An earlier variation occurs in the 1991 movie Slacker, in which there is a discussion about the Smurfs both as a totalitarian colony, or as getting kids used to seeing blue people, so they'll accept Krishna.


Appearance

Papa and Brainy
The theories usually begin by citing what seem to be uncanny aspects of Smurf characters' appearances. Papa Smurf has a bushy white beard, which resembles Karl Marx's. He also wears red slacks and a red cap, displaying the stereotypical color of Communism throughout the world. Despite the society's communal nature, Papa Smurf does have the ultimate authority. In several episodes when Papa Smurf is not present, the Smurf Village's utopian system destabilizes entirely.

[Redshirt]

Interesting OP! :)



In this thread I'd like to discuss that idea - and I realise there are no ultimate answers to the question but I think certain contemporary debates have forced us to ask ourselves questions about what we model our ideal society on.

Agreed. I'm very skeptical of ideologies that promise a utopia, whether it comes from the far left (anarchism, communism) or the far right (free market fundamentalism). They both seem to ignore aspects of human nature. It seems the only way for their utopian societies to have a chance at succeeding is kill everyone off who disagrees with them (and even then, there would be problems).


On the one hand, there is the socialist/Marxist model - which desires a redistributive society in which people participate wholly for the common good and in which equality of means is stressed. It is obvious that experiments with this model have succeeded in some ways and failed in others. Critics of the model, particularly those like Friedman, have argued, with no little success, that it breeds stagnation and mediocrity. It has also been argued that without the incentives of the Capitalist model that progress is halted or stilted - this is a more controversial argument but it has some basis in fact.

I think that argument has merit. There were poor incentives for innovation in the former USSR, other than their space program and military technology where there was a competitive incentive with the West. Similarly, I'm quite skeptical of anarchists. All the things we take for granted in a society -- a universal health care system, contracts, clean streets, utilities, a paycheque, etc.. depend on the rule of law. You want an anarchy? Check out Somalia.

What system should we be working towards? What worked?

I think the best approach is a balanced view. A societal structure should allow for equality of opportunity, welfare state protections and collective bargaining for labour but financial incentives should remain for those who work harder or are more industrious. Being a Green Party supporter, I would also add a strong environmental sustainability ethic as a vital foundation for the society, rather than just economic and social goals.

Anyways, more later, when I have time! :)

[Yahzi]

I tend to look at things like this from an evolutionary perspective.
I was going to comment, but I see I don't have to. :)

[Redshirt]

Munnki, here's a very good article I had to read and review from a seminar in grad school. I think you'll find it very interesting:

Hitting The Sweet Spot: Balancing Equity and Equality To Maximize Wealth and Happiness (http://www.ucalgary.ca/iaprfiles/technicalpapers/iapr-tp-06005.pdf)
By Piers Steel and John Peloza
Institute for Advanced Policy Research, University of Calgary

Abstract:
Equality and equity are two versions of justice, sometimes in conflict. As we try to bring more equality, we can also jeopardize equity, which essentially rewards outstanding behavior. This conflict is expressed in political debate, between liberal and conservative positions, which can degenerate into ideological moral posturing. We investigate whether there is a “sweet spot” between the extremes of equity and equality that helps to maximize a nation’s success. To operationalize success, we use observed GNP per capita and self-report subjective well-being. To operationalize equality-equity, we use observed wealth concentration (i.e., the Gini) and self report power distance. In all cases, there seems to be a broad “sweet spot” where increases or decreases in equality or equity do not have substantive effects but beyond that indices of national success fail off rapidly. Of note, the United States appears to be at the very edge of this range, showing unusually high levels of wealth concentration. We review several major possible causes for this effect, from enabling negative externalities (i.e., reducing wealth) to excessive materialism (i.e., reducing happiness). Finally, we put forth several public policy suggestions that a government can use to keep their countries within the “sweet spot.”

[Berthold]

If adequate food, shelter, and health are guaranteed by society simply because you are human... what incentive is there to do anything other than simply survive? If the basic needs of existence are met with no effort on the part of the individual, why then should the individual put forth any effort? How do you protect against everyone accepting as their right the basics of survival, and putting forth no additional effort? Who then pays for those basic needs?
Sweden (just to take a very caring country; all countries over here are more leftist than the USA) is not a stagnant hellhole. :D

[DMB]

When it comes to it, what I think of as "basic Christianity" gets it right with the parable of the man who fell among thieves, was totally stripped of his possessions and left for dead by the road. Apparently worthy citizens studiously ignored his plight and passed by on the other side of the road, but he was eventually helped by the person normally referred to as the Good Samaritan.

This is just a moral story ascribed to Jesus. Clearly, many modern Christians don't really want to follow Jesus down this path, although many do. I would say it can be applied to any modern group of people or society. We have to ask ourselves whether we prefer our group to "pass by on the other side" or emulate the Good Samaritan.

Do we have the stomach to see fellow citizens lying dying from starvation or lack of adequate healthcare?

[Yahzi]

If adequate food, shelter, and health are guaranteed by society simply because you are human... what incentive is there to do anything other than simply survive?
I dunno, but I can tell you, there's a huge incentive not to stab me in the face and take my stuff.

Frankly, I'm down with any system that encourages people not to stab me in the face. Sure, I could stab them first, but you know what? I've got better things to do with my time. Paying some lay-about to sit in a gutter and drink himself to death sounds way, way better to me than all this face-stabbing.

[muidiri]

If adequate food, shelter, and health are guaranteed by society simply because you are human... what incentive is there to do anything other than simply survive?
I dunno, but I can tell you, there's a huge incentive not to stab me in the face and take my stuff.

Frankly, I'm down with any system that encourages people not to stab me in the face. Sure, I could stab them first, but you know what? I've got better things to do with my time. Paying some lay-about to sit in a gutter and drink himself to death sounds way, way better to me than all this face-stabbing.

I think that just laws forbidding the aforementioned stabbing in the face, and an economic system that allows adequate opportunity for everyone to procure food, shelter, and health is enough to form a stable society.

I think the opportunity needs to be adequate, but the results need not be guaranteed to be adequate. I'd like them to be adequate - certainly. But I also know from long experience that a person's choices aren't always in their best interests, and I have no desire to reward foolish and destructive behavior with continued support.