The really weird part is that you keep making it sound as if the collective was somehow not consisting of people, but were instead some machine that eats people. The good of the group is the good of the people in the group. The author there demonstrates a bias by wording the former as negatively as possible while implying that the latter is intrinsically moral by its mere existence. It's also deceptive for such a definition to imply that the two are mutually exclusive. Helmsley's individualism has harmed millions and killed tens of thousands. Mondragon's collectivism provides prosperity to tens of thousands of, you guessed it, individuals, all of which sport a colorful mosaic of personalities, desires, talents, fears, hopes, levels of personal expression, achievement, ambition, and self[ish|less]ness as circumstances demand. In a purely individualistic 'me' society, you have 'fire-like' anarchy... and in a purely collectivistic 'we' society, you have 'ice-like' lack of freedom when what you really want is a blend... a 'florida-water-warm beach' halfway between the two where people can exercise their individualities while doing as little harm to and as much good for the collective as reasonably possible. You've really gotta catch up with
Nash on equilibrium theory.
Individualism isn't "me, me, me", it's "me, you, him, her". You can't infringe on other's rights for your own benefit.
My understanding was that collectivism=collective good>individual rights and individualism the other way around. But arguing about definitions seems beside the point.
That's fair enough. I kinda question wikipedia's definition of capitalism since it suggests that it is where the means of production is privately owned, rather than definite it as the use of capital to make money (i.e., use money to make money.) I'd like to see the methodology separated from the intent or actors so that the definitions of each part of the equation can be better understood by those who have to take them apart and put them back together on the fly for each individual state and nation that approaches the practice differently.
Since this thread asked us to define socialism, I did so... as a state/collective whose priorities (regardless of means) are the well being of as many of its people as feasible. It could do that by owning everything socially; communistically... or through well-refereed regulation of private ownership; capitalistically. It's the goal and the motivation that defines the social structure... the other aspect is the ECONOMIC structure... and in both you have varying degrees. Where the definitions I'm seeing you post seem to be black and white, what we really have here is a million-blend color-wheel.
Whether or not you question it, that
is the accepted definition. Privately run non-profit organizations aren't socialist, and government services charging user fees and trying to not run a deficit isn't capitalist.
I'm quite sure "well-regulated capitalism" is typically called interventionism. By the way, your definition of socialism would probably mean that, well, pretty much every free-market economist is a socialist. If you asked them if they thought that "the well being of as many of [their nation's] people as feasible" was a good goal, they would (quite likely) say yes, and if you asked them for the best means to achieve this, they would (maybe) say that the free market that emerges spontaneously from the protection of private property, through the pricing system which directs capital to its most valued purposes, makes sure that the least costly capital goods are employed for any production, and transfers capital from bad steward's of wealth to good ones, and that consumers by conscious choices steer the output of the economy and that it's an illusion to think that the entrepreneurs are ultimately in charge, and that (to the extent that capitalists are profit-seeking) consumer demands will be met in the most efficient way possible, and that this process can't be improved by "good regulations" (depending on how radical the economist is, of course).
They might add that state ownership of the means of production means that the means of production aren't exchanged, which means that there's no "production" of prices for means of production, which means that the cost of production can't be quantified, so rational economic calculation (sales revenue-production costs=net gain for society) can't be employed due to the non-existence of measurable production costs. The same, they continue, is true for tax funded projects, since people don't voluntarily consent to fund these, which means that there's no way to know if this is really what they valued most highly, or if they would've rather spent their money on (and thereby directed capital to) something else, meaning that socialized stuff doesn't even know if it benefits the public.
(Although, I will grant that this would have been considered socialism in the 19th century, since in that time a socialist theory was any theory which purported to solve the problem of improving the conditions of the workers. It surely isn't by modern definitions, though.)
Bghkdkyy... no. I do not agree that unregulated distribution leads to ideal distribution. In a lawless situation such as that, those with the least moral values have the greatest advantage over those who are the most responsible, and a few lucky good-natured innovators may find their way into a well-to-do middle zone if they aren't 'put down' by the oligarchical results of such a system. Good people CAN do things that render profit... even large sums of profit. This is not automatically bad. The very wealthy german industrialist is a good example. He repays the society that has enriched him and still remains rich once the bill is settled. We had plenty of rich people in America during the 50 years in which (contrary to your 'obvious' statement above) the government intervened against obscene wealth on behalf of the working stiff. It will intervene on behalf of whomever is in control of it. Since FDR that was the middle class... since Reagan that has been the rich. Thus, government now intervenes against the worker on behalf of the wealthy. This is not a foregone conclusion, simply the current status. It's long been a flaw in the group-think of those who wear (if not behaving accordingly) the 'conservative' badge that what is has always been or always should be. Of course, that can happen when you have texas pumping out revisionist history textbooks for the entire nation and you have huckabee distribution 'for-kids' cartoons doing the same.
Oh, I should've clarified. I meant a situation in which the only rules were the upholding of private property, self-ownership and the enforcement of contractual obligations, you know, individual rights and whatnot. In such a situation, "immoral" behavior, if defined as infringement of other's rights (pollution, for example), would be punished. If you mean behavior that you consider immoral, but which doesn't infringe on other's rights, like, say, selling products for a price above cost instead of constantly selling at a huge loss, then, well, yeah, the ones selling at a loss would go out of business. But the fact that companies need to profit to stay afloat means that the price must reflect the real costs, so that an effective demand will exist only if the goods actually are more valuable than what went into producing them.
I'm not sure what you mean by immoral behavior, is probably what I'm saying.
By the way, can you provide some statistics from this marvelous period, and maybe say what policies brought it? I found this
chart. (and
this. Poverty seemed to be disappearing, but shortly after 1964 the decrease stopped.
What might be the reasons for this?
(I'm sure poverty rate isn't representative of how well the "small guy" fared during these magnificent times, though.
The government needs to be a referee. It does not prevent wealth, it just ensures that those who absorb wealth from others repay those others with an equivalent share of social responsibility. If the top one tenth of the top one percent in america are going to own and control and seclude 50 odd percent of all the nation's weath, they have to simultaneously address 50% of the nation's needs. And they aren't.. so the nation is dying.
I addressed this earlier. The reason that people earn more than they give back to society is that gov't helps them out. Had all exchanges been voluntarily, mutual benefit would permeate every interaction.
... you're seriously suggesting that the government is coercing helmsley into taking home a 1.5 billion dollar paycheck? Seriously?
No, I don't mean that coercive power is to blame in
that way. I mean that the existence of it invites people to buy off some pol's for their benefit, had it not existed, it would obviously not serve such perverse special interests. This was what I meant, mkay? I don't mean to say that people taking advantage of this are innocent angles; indeed, I wouldn't hesitate to call them evil.
